Heineken Cup talks "have now ended"

[St George]

So the only sensible answer then is for a new body to be formed. If we want to set up a group of European Tournaments that cover the Whole of Europe then all stakeholders need to be involved. In the short term (while the developing nations get up to speed) They can be represented by FIRA (If they want).

How Votes are devided up will be difficult, we still need Union involvement because they should control Governance and Discipline (In My opinion) but there needs to be a bigger role for the League organizers too (There clubs make up the majority and any attempt to sideline them will stop any compromise).

I think the original RCC idea of 3 tiers had a lot of merit. But if we want the smaller Rugby nations on board (assuming we are serious about this being a European competition) they need to have a voice, not just be dictated to.


The other option is we could all keep arguing about who is the most Greedy... Rather than getting a pie big enough for all.

IMO this would be heading in the right direction. The 6N are the dominant force in Europe for a reason, they have the experience and quality when it comes to providing a product that is viable. But i dont see why other bodies like FIRA who represent non-6N Rugby, cannot be a junior partner in a European wide body.
The current impasse of sticking with a busted flush will ensure everyone suffers, but i see the Welsh being hit hardest to start with. The other nations that are unable to provide a standalone domestic product will follow suit.

No winners....everyone loses something....and some call this professional rugby....yes, but run by amateurs.

 

[Prestwick]

So the only sensible answer then is for a new body to be formed. If we want to set up a group of European Tournaments that cover the Whole of Europe then all stakeholders need to be involved. In the short term (while the developing nations get up to speed) They can be represented by FIRA (If they want).

How Votes are devided up will be difficult, we still need Union involvement because they should control Governance and Discipline (In My opinion) but there needs to be a bigger role for the League organizers too (There clubs make up the majority and any attempt to sideline them will stop any compromise).

I think the original RCC idea of 3 tiers had a lot of merit. But if we want the smaller Rugby nations on board (assuming we are serious about this being a European competition) they need to have a voice, not just be dictated to.


The other option is we could all keep arguing about who is the most Greedy... Rather than getting a pie big enough for all.

I fully agree. The smaller nations (and by extension their leagues) need seats at the table and their names on the agenda of meetings.

The problem is that FIRA (or whatever will replace it) has been brought up, by Camou, as a deliberate ploy to basically ***** up the traditional balance of things when the Home Nations bar the RFU (who are frankly too big to care) are pre-occupied by the whole Heineken Cup row.

We're seeing now why he was so desperate to get the French clubs to sign up to another season of H-Cup rugby and it wasn't to save a cherished european cup competition! It was a power grab. Pure and simple.

The fact that when the Home Nations (and RFU who now want an agreement simply to stop everyone arguing) called Camou's bluff and suddenly agreed to a revised H-Cup but crucially without FIRA involvement Camou walked out of the meeting in a strop proves that his gambit failed.

We need FIRA/whatever in on this and they need a voice but we need it done properly in a decently negotiated agreement and not a last minute 11th hour dogs dinner of a fudge!

 

[welshglory]

I fully agree. The smaller nations (and by extension their leagues) need seats at the table and their names on the agenda of meetings.

The problem is that FIRA (or whatever will replace it) has been brought up, by Camou, as a deliberate ploy to basically ***** up the traditional balance of things when the Home Nations bar the RFU (who are frankly too big to care) are pre-occupied by the whole Heineken Cup row.

We're seeing now why he was so desperate to get the French clubs to sign up to another season of H-Cup rugby and it wasn't to save a cherished european cup competition! It was a power grab. Pure and simple.

The fact that when the Home Nations (and RFU who now want an agreement simply to stop everyone arguing) called Camou's bluff and suddenly agreed to a revised H-Cup but crucially without FIRA involvement Camou walked out of the meeting in a strop proves that his gambit failed.

We need FIRA/whatever in on this and they need a voice but we need it done properly in a decently negotiated agreement and not a last minute 11th hour dogs dinner of a fudge!

You do know that the celtic unions will never even come to the table to discuss something like that. This was probably the only chance of a more balanced european governance. Now we're probably going to have to wait for another 10-20 years before it even gets mentioned again.

I don't see what's so wrong with Camou's methods, unless it was for purely France's interests which i don't think it was to be honest. We have to remember that they're pretty much the only union that has actually given any thought or effort to the wider European game or world game for that matter. The Celtic unions do not care about anyone elese. Rugby has always been a snobbish and insular looking game at the top level and the majority of its fans and probably will be for the forceable future.

 

[Prestwick]

You do know that the celtic unions will never even come to the table to discuss something like that. This was probably the only chance of a more balanced european governance. Now we're probably going to have to wait for another 10-20 years before it even gets mentioned again.

I don't see what's so wrong with Camou's methods, unless it was for purely France's interests which i don't think it was to be honest. We have to remember that they're pretty much the only union that has actually given any thought or effort to the wider European game or world game for that matter. The Celtic unions do not care about anyone elese. Rugby has always been a snobbish and insular looking game at the top level and the majority of its fans and probably will be for the forceable future.

Everything was wrong with Camou's methods. The timing, the intentions and the execution. Everything. This is about saving the Heineken cup and stopping the disintegration of club rugby beyond England and France NOT about grand designs about a new European rugby world order.

What Camou was proposing wasn't balanced at all and of course it was tilted in the French interest.

Re- build a European competition under the aegis of FIRA which was an organisation created by and closely linked to the FFR as a method of cementing French rugby's links with the smaller rugby unions in Europe?

Of course I'm in favor of FIRA or whatever represents the smaller unions having a bigger role.

But right now? This is like Camou interrupting the RFU trying to fix a flat tire on European rugby's car to say "say... why don't I just take this car apart completely and rebuild it how I want it to be?"

It was an illogical plan and bound to cause more harm than good and now look whats happened. He's scuppered one agreement to solve the problem and walked out on another.

 

[Croket66]

http://www1.agerpres.ro/sport/2013/...eresanti-ani-pentru-rugbyul-romanesc-11-18-18
An interview with Alin Petrache (FRR chairman).

He mentions that two Romanian teams might play in European competitions (Bucharest Wolves and RCM Timisoara, current champion) next season and that the FRR supports the inclusion of Russian and Georgian teams but that the other unions are very reluctant due to travel and visa issues...

Timisoara will play home games in the Dan Paltinisanu stadium (32 000 seats)

 

[Prestwick]

The FFR can support whoever they want but if they still want FIRA to run the whole thing then any suggestion they make will be a non-starter.

We could now see the bizarre prospect of a British & Irish cup AND a Franco-Eastern European competition?!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Erm... Bucharest already play in the Amlin!

Rumours abound that the IRB is about to step in - supposedly targeting the PRL and putting pressure on the RFU.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

We could now see the bizarre prospect of a British & Irish cup AND a Franco-Eastern European competition?!

That's how it appears to me too. Whatever about the competitiveness of a B&I Cup, a continental European competition would be a farce. I couldn't see the Top 14 sides putting out anything like full strength teams against Italian, Romanian, Russian and Georgian teams.

For the sake of argument, say there are two separate European competitions. Reuniting them will be the obvious goal for everyone but will be difficult without cutting adrift clubs from tier 2 nations. Since the continental European Cup would likely be FIRA-AER run, they're unlikely to be willing to cast aside weaker members for the benefit of the 6 Nations countries. Could we then see a continental league (to appease FIRA) and a B&I league (formalizing the new B&I cup in a league format instead of the Premiership) with the top 8 teams in each league fighting it out for European glory on a straight knockout basis? That would appear to me to be the logical step to reunite everything.

 

[Peat]

I don't think the political will is there for those sort of leagues. Maybe down the line, but its hard to see it now.

Also, really, I'd like to see us try and smile the Romanians/Spanish/Belgians and other useful EU countries into joining a competition run by the BI nations and Italy with talk of a good graduation structure and helping to fill the games left by no French. Because, really, I'm up for including those guys, but if the French want to start playing silly buggers at the last by talking about FIRA I would cut them adrift tomorrow. Anytime they're willing to join, then great, but as far as I'm concerned 5 of the 6 is enough for a competition so no need to hang around for them. Seems obvious. Also, in terms of rugby politics *spits* we can't let the French go around casting us as the bad guys and themselves as the good guys all the time.

I am up for including Russia & Georgia too, but I don't know how serious the Visa/Travel issues are, and how much of it is convenient excuse making.

However, there doesn't seem to be any political will for that either.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

For the uneducated like myself, what's the main problem with FIRA-AER running European competitions? Is it that, as Stephen Jones claims, they're seen as a FFR puppet? I've no evidence to the contrary of that viewpoint nor do I have anything in favour of it.

From the outside looking in, PRL want meritocratic entry to the top European competition (their RCC) which would likely cut out teams like Zebre and Connacht. For that reason, I can't see a B&I lead competition admitting clubs from tier 2 countries to it. Those teams would be worse than the excluded Connacht and Zebre teams.

I'd love to see them brought in from the cold but think without French involvement in pushing the action, it won't happen.

 

[welshglory]

A professional FIRA with resources backing it would look completely different, that's the thing. It currently only has 2 people running it for f*$% sake, and they're probably volunteering from the FFR. The reason it's so Fraco affiliated is because the FFR is the only nation who has funded it, shown any interest in the wider European game, played matches against Romania, Italy etc before and after the 6 nations.

The home nations literally had to be forced to join it instead of volunteering. They really couldn't give a rat's arse about the rest of Europe. All the Unions care about is keeping the status quo. The last thing they want want is expansion.

 

[smartcooky]

A professional FIRA with resources backing it would look completely different, that's the thing. It currently only has 2 people running it for f*$% sake, and they're probably volunteering from the FFR. The reason it's so Fraco affiliated is because the FFR is the only nation who has funded it, shown any interest in the wider European game, played matches against Romania, Italy etc before and after the 6 nations.

The home nations literally had to be forced to join it instead of volunteering. They really couldn't give a rat's arse about the rest of Europe. All the Unions care about is keeping the status quo. The last thing they want want is expansion.

Agree with everything here except the last bit, in bold

Q: Which organisation has been responsible for the vast majority of the global expansion of the game in the last 20 years?
A: The iRB

Q: Where does the iRB get the money to pay for the global expansion of the game?
A: From the Rugby World Cup

Q: Who participates in the Rugby World Cup?
A: The National Unions

Q: Who runs/operates the iRB?
A: The National Unions

 

[welshglory]

Well that's exactly my point actually.
Expansion is happening at the IRB level because of the democracy in the IRB. It shows that there are more union's who care about the expansion of the sport than not, thank god. This is exactly the opposite at regional level, where the minow European nations don't even have a say on how the game is run. At least they have 1 vote at IRB level!!!

I'm talking about the unions who don't care about expansion and globalisation of the game, particularly in Europe who i believe to be the celtic nations. The RFU is just short sighted and selfish, but they're not stupid. They know that they would be at the head of the table in a growing game and they are.

The evidence points to the celtic unions though, the same unions who voted against a world cup.

 

[psychic duck]

Agree with everything here except the last bit, in bold

Q: Which organisation has been responsible for the vast majority of the global expansion of the game in the last 20 years?
A: The iRB

Q: Where does the iRB get the money to pay for the global expansion of the game?
A: From the Rugby World Cup

Q: Who participates in the Rugby World Cup?
A: The National Unions

Q: Who runs/operates the iRB?
A: The National Unions

Yes, but look at the voting for the recent IRB chairman role. The options were Bill Beaumont (considered a staunch conservative) or Bernard Lapasset (considered to be more pro global expansion). Lapasset got the French, South African and Australian vote, but Beaumont got the Celts, the RFU and NZRU meaning he won the founding nations vote 10pts to 6. But Lapasset then virtually swept all the minor voting nations like Argentina, Italy, FIRA etc to get a narrow 14-12 win for a more progressive IRB. As welshglory says the Celts have a history of conservatism, voting against the RWC for example, and their blazers are still very conservative now.

With Lapasset winning, it now seems that the IRB are going to award Argentina and Italy the same privileges as the founding nations and they will get 2 votes each as well meaning that there will likely be more votes on the progressive side of the argument.

 

[Rumpi]

The evidence points to the celtic unions though, the same unions who voted against a world cup.

The same unions who charge the Italians a scandalous 3 million to play in the rabo!

 

[LittleGuy]

Yes, but look at the voting for the recent IRB chairman role. The options were Bill Beaumont (considered a staunch conservative) or Bernard Lapasset (considered to be more pro global expansion). Lapasset got the French, South African and Australian vote, but Beaumont got the Celts, the RFU and NZRU meaning he won the founding nations vote 10pts to 6. But Lapasset then virtually swept all the minor voting nations like Argentina, Italy, FIRA etc to get a narrow 14-12 win for a more progressive IRB. As welshglory says the Celts have a history of conservatism, voting against the RWC for example, and their blazers are still very conservative now.

With Lapasset winning, it now seems that the IRB are going to award Argentina and Italy the same privileges as the founding nations and they will get 2 votes each as well meaning that there will likely be more votes on the progressive side of the argument.

Lappaset got every single vote aside from the Home Nations and Oz + NZ. The regional bodies all voted for Lappaset and from what I've heard the regional groups were unanimous(did not have dissenting views within body though I can't confirm this as I never saw recorded vote totals and am going on people's word), it was essentially Ninety+ IRB members versus Six.

 

[psychic duck]

Lappaset got every single vote aside from the Home Nations and Oz + NZ. The regional bodies all voted for Lappaset and from what I've heard the regional groups were unanimous(did not have dissenting views within body though I can't confirm this as I never saw recorded vote totals and am going on people's word), it was essentially Ninety+ IRB members versus Six.

Yes, it shows the skewed voting system that nearly every country wanted Lapasset but the Home Nations and New Zealand yet they only got a small majority. Hopefully the proposed change of Argentina and Italy getting the 2 vote powers will change this. I would also like to see more Tier 2 nations get at least 1 vote as well instead of voting through a regional body.

 

[ratsapprentice]

IRB Statement: http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediaz...9956.html#irb+statement+european+competitions

The International Rugby Board strongly believes that the establishment of a truly representative pan-European Rugby competition that fully complies with IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws is in the best interests of the global Game.

The IRB acknowledges and supports the commitment of the Six Nations Member Unions in their ongoing attempts to reach an accord for a genuine European competition that has Europe's top players and fans at heart.

However, despite progress on key terms for the future of European competition, the apparent lack of a common solution across the Six Nations Unions and their respective clubs, regions and provinces is of concern to the IRB.

IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset said: "In order to reach an outcome that is in the best interests of Rugby globally, the IRB will work actively with its Unions towards the goal of achieving a unified and acceptable outcome for all stakeholders involved."

"In the interests of the global Game, the IRB reaffirms that it will not support any cross border competitions that are not approved by the Unions of any participating clubs, Rugby bodies and host countries in full accordance with IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws."

 

[LittleGuy]

Yes, it shows the skewed voting system that nearly every country wanted Lapasset but the Home Nations and New Zealand yet they only got a small majority. Hopefully the proposed change of Argentina and Italy getting the 2 vote powers will change this. I would also like to see more Tier 2 nations get at least 1 vote as well instead of voting through a regional body.

Agreed, Italy and Argentina up to two votes, United States to a full vote along with possibly Georgia, Romania, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Hard to justify's Scotlands two vote spot when the game is smaller there than a lot of countries I just listed

 

[psychic duck]

Agreed, Italy and Argentina up to two votes, United States to a full vote along with possibly Georgia, Romania, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Hard to justify's Scotlands two vote spot when the game is smaller there than a lot of countries I just listed

Canada, USA and Japan should definitely have 1 vote between them, if not 2. Japan are hosting a RWC and are a big market so surely they should get as much influence as Scotland in ther near future. I would like to see Georgia and Romania have a vote aside from FIRA. The Pacific Islanders however are different as their unions have been exposed as inept several times. The Tongan Union ****** off the IRB so much that they haven't had a home game since 2009 and remember that Samoan debacle from their blazers at the RWC?