Dispute looms in European rugby

Dispute looms in European rugby

A significant scrap in European rugby is looming after the French Rugby Federation used its muscle to warn clubs that no changes to the Heineken Cup competition could be made without its sanction.

Earlier on Sunday the breakaway group in England, headed by the Premiership clubs had said through chief executive Mark McCafferty that they expected Celtic and Italian teams to join the Rugby Champions Cup competition.

But the FFR responded by pointing out that any change needs the approval of the Rugby Football Union, the FFR and the International Rugby Board.

And so far as the FFR were concerned they would not be giving approval.

"No meeting or international competition involving French clubs can be organised outside the framework of the FFR and without its prior agreement," the FFR said in a statement.

The French officials went so far as to describe the planned changes to the European competition as 'irrelevant and inappropriate'.

However, the breakaway group are ploughing ahead with their plans but won't be releasing details of their planned structure until they know the teams involved.

"Once we know the final, or close to final, numbers then we'll settle on the competition formats," McCafferty said.

"Various people have approached us about the possibility of joining and we've indicated to them that we'll keep their names confidential."

He was confident of securing Rugby Football Union support but did not rule out legal action if they didn't.

"You can't just say from a legal point of view 'we don't want it so we're not going to approve it', especially when there's a conflict of interests.

"We'll try to overcome the issues and then take it from there. We're asking for support. We'd expect that support," McCafferty said.

@becs and ceradyne,

would like to know ur thoughts on the matter, i mean WTF is going on over there??? o_O

@Clevermike. First of all there is a big difference between Great Britain and England, as you know. Secondly, I do not think that you have a clear idea of what is going on. Becs gave a discrition the other day. The English AND the French did not want to get at the Irish Clubs, nor do they want to "write off" Scatland and Italy. You clearly do not know what the heck is going on. I am not saying that I have a 100% full knwoledge of exactly what the issues are. See my reply to Sasuke.

@Sasuke. I do not know when that article was published and what the sources are. I do think that they have it totally wrong though. There are a number of articles who paint a total different picture. The French and the English does not want to kick anybody out, hence their invitation for the others to join them. The fact is that they are, for various reasons, not happy to carry on in a competition arrange by the ERC (European Rugby Cup), the governing body, unless they make some canges to the competition and the distribution of funds. Note that when I refer to the French here, I mean the French Top 14 clubs. The reason is that the Irish and Scottish teams, for example, goes directly into the Heineken Cup because they only have four Premiership clubs each. The RaboDirect Pro12 clubs are Connach, Leinster, Munster and Ulster. Scatland have Border, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Caledonia. This means that they can all rest their top players in the and then use them in teh Heineken Cup, like Becs has said. The French have their Top14 and England have their Premiership with 12 teams. These two play their own tough compettion with no cahnces of resting players because they are also fighting to win their domestic compettion.

Added to that, there is also, apparently a dispute about teh distribution of funds. The RFU and the French have more sides that form the ERC body and, if I understand it correctly the proceeds are divided equally. The Frenc and England has been asking for changes for a very long time and the rest have just turned a blind eye to their requests to have a discussion about it. England and France have decided that if the issues are not addressed as a matter of urgency, they will break away and form their own competition. The latest, if one can has to believe the sources, is that the RaboDirect Pro 12 teams, that include two teams from Italy and teams from Scotland and Ireland have indicated that they would be interested. The ERC has once again postponed a meeting to the 23rd of October and a Canadian arbiter has now been appointed to assit them.

Read this article dated 22 Sept.

The following are a few paragraphs from the article:

Anglo-French efforts to form a European breakaway competition have stepped up with the confirmation that a new tournament open to Celtic and Italian teams will be established in time for next season.

Premiership Rugby, in conjunction with its French equivalent Ligue Nationale de Rugby, has announced that the tournament will be called the Rugby Champions Cup.

"The competition will be based on the principles of qualification on merit, a strong competition format, equality between the leagues, higher commercial values for the teams and expansion into new European markets," read a statement released by Premiership Rugby.

The announcement underlines Anglo-French determination to press ahead with their own version of the Heineken Cup, which appears to be in its death throes given the determination to force change.

It also confirms their unwillingness to work under European Rugby Cup, the organisation that runs the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cups and that appointed an independent mediator on Friday in an attempt to thrash out a new tournament agreement.

It is so that the FFR (French Rugby Union) are dead against this breakaway idea. What is interesting is to see what is going to happen if the Top 14 Clubs are not willing to fall in with the FFR. Will the FFR suspend them? Will it bother them if they get suspended? I cannot see the FFR suspending the Top14 clubs. They will cripple themselves because the Top 14 clubs is also a source of income for the FFR. Methinks it will turn ugly if it is not resolved. I also do not think that the English and French clubs really want to breal away. They are just pissed off at the ERC for not listening to them.

Structural, qualification and financial changes are being sought by the Premiership and Top 14 teams, whose bargaining position is strengthened by a lucrative television rights deal with BT Sport, although the detail of that remains unclear.

If and when ERC - which has agreed a new broadcasting deal with Sky - has been dealt with, union and International Rugby Board approval will be required before the Rugby Champions Cup can begin.

"The Top 14 and Premiership Rugby clubs have already confirmed their participation in the new competition and a joint working group has been created to prepare all necessary elements in good time for the 2014-15 season," Premiership Rugby's statement continued.

Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCafferty confirmed that approaches have been received from RaboDirect PRO12 teams expressing interest in the Rugby Champions Cup - which he "expects" to be more than an Anglo-French competition.

"Before we can release more details we need to know over the next few weeks which other teams will be joining the competition," McCafferty said.

"We expect those discussions to continue over the next few weeks. Once we know the final, or close to final, numbers then we settle on the competition formats.

"Various people have approached us about the possibility of joining and we've indicated to them that we'll keep their names confidential.

"We've heard that other people want to be involved in European competitions, that's why we've left the door open and expect it to be more than an Anglo-French competition.

McCafferty revealed the proposed Rugby Champions Cup would be overseen by an "organising body of some sort - it doesn't need to be as big, unwieldy or institutionalised as ERC".

He denied ERC claims that the detail of its television deal with BT Sport is shrouded in mystery - "the RFU know what's in it" - and said that the French clubs will only play in a competition involving their English counterparts.

18 Sep 2013 17:47

But IRB chief executive Brett Gosper, speaking on the subject for the first time, insists all European nations must be involved.

Premiership Rugby will step up plans to create a new European competition - despite the International Rugby Board declaring they would oppose a format composed exclusively of Anglo-French clubs.

English and French clubs are seeking structural, qualification and financial changes to the Heineken Cup and have refused to work under tournament organisers European Rugby Cup once the current agreement expires at the end of the season.

Should Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian sides decline their invitation to join their tournament, teams from the Aviva Premiership and Top 14 will play each other.

Ultimate approval would be required from the IRB’s council, however, and chief executive of the global game’s governing body Brett Gosper has indicated that would not be forthcoming.

I do not think it is as easy as ou Maaikie thinks it is. I mean how does this make sense?:

"This will ultimately end up in court and the English will be told to behave themselves by the IRB."

Since when is the IRB the court? If the French and the English pull out the Heineken Cup is not worth shit as a competition.

No Mike, You are the one who cannot read English. Apart from the fact that you are are hiding your balls-up behind trying to be clever with your "Britannia rules the waves" story, which also show that you do not know/understand the story behind the song, you also do not quite understand the rugby set-up either. The song, by the way, is "Rule, Britannia" and the phrase is "Rule Brittania, Britannia rule the waves". It does not imply (like some people and yourself obviously) think that it means that Brittain, at the time that the song was written, were ruling the waves. It was originally meant as a song of inticement to go out and rule the waves (sea). It had to do with a war between Spain and England and the sea power of the Dutch Republic at the time. I am sure that Becs could give you more accurate details about it.

As for the rugby side:

First of all. The English Premiership clubs AND the French Top 14 clubs are in the same boat in a way. The FFR is against the idea and the RFU has not opposed it yet. It is BS that the Fench clubs are silent about it. Nobody is quoting anything that is coming out of France, because the newspapers are in French, and nobody here reads the French websites and newspapers.

Secondly. The Premiership, or English clubs, as you put it and the Ligue Nationale de Rugby or the French Top14 Clubs does not include all of the English and French clubs. It is only the top tier clubs in of the two rugby unions.

Thirdly, you have probably do not understand what McCarthy has said. He has not threatened the anybody with court action. He want to force them to give them reasons why they, the RFU, would not support them in their venture. He is not threatening them with court action to force them to back them. These are his words, according to the first article: "You can't just say from a legal point of view 'we don't want it so we're not going to approve it', especially when there's a conflict of interests." Nowhere does it quote him threatening with legal action. The reporter has said that, but he hasn't quoted him on that.

The thing is that both the Premiership and the Ligue Nationale de Rugby want answers as to why nobody, i.e. the ERC and the IRB want to listen to them, and this is where you are losing it:

1. They do not want to exclude anybody. The want the rules of the competition changed because they are, at present, at present disadvantaged. Their clubs have to qualify to play in the competition. I have told you a few times now, and I have quoted two articles explaining it. The Scotish and Irish clubs do not have to qualify at the moment. So you are completely wrong in your assumption that the French and English clubs want to make it difficult for them to play in the competition. They want to have a way in which the Scittish and Irish clubs also have to qualify instead of just walking into the compettion. Remember how pissed off we were when the Kings walked into the S15 and the Lions had to qualify to be included again? It is the same priciple. At the moment the French and English clubs are disadvantaged. They do not want to make it more difficult for one lot, they want it as difficult for the Scotts and the Irish, as it is for the rest.

2. They want a more fair distribution of funds. If you look at the current dispensation, you have a situation where the Irish and English clubs (for example) get the same slice of the cake, but then the Irish slice is divided between four sides, while the England slice is divided between 12 English sides.

I have discovered another Maaikie pet hate. England and English rugby. LOL

 Mike do you think the scottish Italian clubs etc are not good enough to make it on merit?

Why should they also not need to qualify?

If they cant make it by qualifying perhaps they belong in the lower league?

@Mike. Answer me one question. Forget for a moment the Kings' performance in the 2013 S15 and cast your mind back to this time last year. Did you agree with the way that the Kings was granted automatic inclusion in teh S15 and with the priciple that the Lions had to play in a promo/relagetion match to regain entry into Suoer Rugby? If you do agree that that was correct, then I will not arge with you any further, because I will then understand why you think that it is correct that the French and English have to qualify tp play in the Heineken Cup.

You then make your case even worse by insinuating that they do not have to qualify to play. You just keep on proving that you have no idea what you are talking about. Three of the four Scottish and Irish sides all play in the Heineken Cup. Whether they win their leagues or not. The French and English Clubs have to end in the top 6 of their respective leagues to be allowed to play in the Heineken. Have you even looked at how the teams qualify for the Heineken Cup? I doubt it, but let me explain it to you in any case.

England and France, as the two biggest unions are allowed six sides each. The criteria for France is their performance in the Top 14. They have to finish in the top 6 out of 14 sides to qualify for the Heineken. England have to qualify in the Aviva and the LV Cup competitions.

Ireland and Wales have 3 sides each based on their performance in the RaboDirect Pro12.

Scotland and Itally have two places, based on their performance in the RaboDirect Pro12.

In addition to the above, both the winners of the previous Heineken Cup and the Amlin Cup, which is the second tier European competition, gets the 23 and 24 spots in the competition, eraning an extra spot for their countries. And this is where the catch comes in. Read this, from the Heineken Cup website:

However, England and France, who have six automatic places (which is not really automatic places, because they have to end in the top 6 of their respective domestic competitions), will only be allowed a maximum of seven clubs. So if either country wins both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup, then the second additional spot will pass on to the club with the highest ERC European Ranking who has not already qualified, from any of the other five nations.

In other words, it is possible for the "other nations" to have all their clubs involved in the Heineken Cup. It also means that at least 10 or more of the 12 RaboDirect Pro12 teams will go through to the Heineken Cup and a maximimum of only 6 of the 12 Premiership clubs can play in the Heineken and a maximum of only 6 of the fourteen Top 14 clubs can play in the Heineken Cup.

If they want to develop the rugby in Scotland in Italy, why should it be at the highest level. Why not leave the Heineken for the prestige/top teams and do the development in teh second tier Amlin Cup and thereby leave the Heineken for only the best clubs to compete in. At the moment there are clubs playing in teh Amiln Cup, who could beat some of the clubs in teh Heineken Cup, and that dosn't make sense. That is what the Premiership and the Ligue Nationale de Rugby want. They do not want to exclude anybody from any European competition.

Furthermore the Scottish Rugby Union is 140 years old, and they still only have four proffesional rugby clubs. How is kickstarting them into a top tier competition going to get them more professional sides? The top tier competition is not the place to go. The Argentina argument does not fly either. Argentina is not palying Super Rugby at the moment and you are not going to do a thing in the short run by kickstarting them into Super Rugby by allowing all of their domestic sides to play in the Super Rugby competition. The will have some sort of combined Argentinian side or two to start off with and try and develop them further.

You do not need to create public awarness for rugby in Scotland. The game is nothing new to them and they all know it. The thing is that in the UK you get football people and you get rugby people. There are not many people around who enjoy both, and unfortunately rugby is in the minority and you will never ever change the mind of a football supporter to become as big a rugby supporter. Forget it. It will not happen, and it has nothing to do with awarness of the game rugby. Rugby will never compete on an equal footing with football in the UK, ever.

Oh FFS Mike, are you dof,or are you flogging a dead horse? I have never said that thye are playing qualifying rounds. I have said that they have to qualify in their different competitions. You are the clown who do not see that there are teams from nations, taking part in the Heineken Cup, who can still end up playing in the Heineken Cup even if they come stone last in their domestic competitions, while there are is no way that an English or French club can end up last on the log and still play in the Heineken Cup. If and English or French club end up lower that 6th on the log, the Heineken Cup is gone for them.

You are putting words in my mouth to justify your onw bullshit argumenst, as usual. There is also no secrecy issue, and what has that got to do with anything in any case. You are thrwoing all kinds of smoke screens again to cloud your own stupid arguments. The secrecy etc, etc has nothing to do with the fact that you are so outspoken about something that you crlearly do not understand.

I have never said that the French or British Govt interfere with their rugby, bit that is just another smoke screen argument. The fact that the Kings story was a political thing does not change the priciple about it. It is not fair to exclude certain clubs like they are doing at the moment. Go look at what I have said. England and France can never get the extra team in the Heineken, based on the previous Heineken Champs being French/English clubs or based on the fact that they are previous Amiln Cup winners. All the others have that advantage.

Let me give you a practical example. Ireland have three guaranteed places in the Heineken Cup, based on their performance in the RaboDirectPo12. Suppose the four Irish clubs end up like this on the Pro12 log:

2nd - Leinster

4th - Munster

5th - Ulster

7th Connacht

Then Leinster, Munster and Ulster will go through to the Heineken for the follwoing year. Now, suppose Leinster then go ahead and win the Hieneken Cup. Then, for the following year, they have their normal three clubs in the Heineken plus, they have an extra spot, due to winning the Heineke Cup. Therefore Ireland has automatic entrance in the Heineken Cup compettion for all four their side. They then have an extra spot open in the Heineken cup, without even having to win a single game in the Por 12.  Get that? Or is it too difficult. Now suppose one of the French or English clubs win the Heineke Cup, then they will still have only there normal six spots in teh competition. What is ironic is that they extra spot, that they have earned themselves, then goes to one of the Pro 12 teams from either Scotland, Ireland, Wales or Italy, depending which one is the best non-qualifier. Get that? That is one of the things that is bugging the French and the English. I was hoping for this not to become so lengthy, but your insistance that teh bad English was being a secrative selfish bullshitting bunch of scanivers prompted it. I was hoping that you would understand that some teams, that are not English or French teams, could play in the Heineken Cup without discussing the entire syste, in detail.

There is a very good reason why some of the detail is withheld and it is not at the request of the Premiership or the Top 14 clubs. It is at the request of the other clubs who has shown interest in joining their, the Anglo-French, competition.

 I blame BT sport, they tried to buy the rights for european rugby by going directly to the french and english clubs, most of the broadcast money is in England and France. Hence BT buying the premiership. I also think that there are some behind the doors conversations going on with South Africa. There is rumours that the currie cup format will change next year to have 8 teams instead of 6 and give the kings automatic qualifications. This is to prepare SA qualification credibility as they currently have a 6 team format. If they didn't it would disqualify the "merrit" criteria for entry. So the top 6 curry cup teams will qualify for the competitions making it 18 teams + the other teams that could lead to a 24 team format. Although how the pools will work is unknown. 

Personally I think that Wales, Ireland and Scotland did the right thing in creating provinces over clubs. England has a popluation of 60 million people and same goes for France. My biggest problem with England and France is that its full of non-qualified players for country. France has gone backwards as an international team and England have struggled for years. This due to the fact that the clubs have more power than the national union. The clubs do not serve the national cause where in Ireland and wales it all builds up to the national team.

So I don't if I want SA to be dragged into the same thing where the provinces are more powerful than the boks, its already starting to kreep in where players choose to go to Japan and then just come back for the super 15. 

I would not quite blame BT in this one, KC. Even if I do not like the BT bunch. They have been buying sports broadcasting rights all over the show with the sole purpose of trying to punt and increase their market share in the broadband market. The targetted and hoped to win over millions of Virgin Media customers and it didn't work. They managed to secure the broadcast rights for the entire Aviva Premiership and this weekend the showed exactlt two games. They also showed only two Top14 games.

Having said that, they are not behind this entire drive. It has been brewing for some time, sine the current Heineken deal is up for renewal and the French and English clubs have been pissed off for a long time. Long before BT became involved.

To say that France and England has been going backwards is also not quite treu, IMO. England gave us a moer of go last year and the beat NZ. The Lions beat Aus. France teached the RWC finals and gave NZ a hard time in their own back yard.

I also do not think that the clubs have more power than the national unions. Both the RFU and the FFR have to approve such a breakaway in any case. When it comes to 6N time, the RFU and the FFR withdraw the players that they need and teh clubs do everything to have representation in the national sides. The big difference is that during the 6N the other competitions do not become watered down like our CC during the RC. That is because the European clubs still have their other international players available, during the 6N.

Even though rugby is not as big in Europe as in the SH, the rugby supporters are as passionate about their rugby as the football supporters are about their rugby. The attendances is proof enough. I just have to look at the attendances over here at the Madejski stadium. London Irish has been poor for a number of years now, yet the entire Reading flock down to the Mad on match day, even though the Exiles can expect another drumming. The same goes at other stadia.

Our players hopping over to Japan has all to do with money. The players in Japan is proving what I always say. A promise of a Bok jersey is not always going to keep rugby players from leaving anymore.

Every time that you write something, you show your ignorance about the issue. You keep on ducking and diving by coming up with new bullshit. I did not say that France gave teh All Blacks a hard time in June. Go read again.

I said that England beat the All Blacks, or are you going to dispute that as well. I also did not say anuthing about France and the All Blacks in June. I said that they reached the final of the RWC and gave the All Blacks a hard time. In fact, I just noticed my typo in that remark. This is what I said: "France teached the RWC finals and gave NZ a hard time in their own back yard.". Check the typo. I typed "teached" instead of "reached".

As for the way that the Heineken Cup is arranged and how it works. Make sure of your facts or STFU, because you are either confusing yourself or you are deliberately trying to sidestep the issues. One is the fact that you are trying to say that the entire issue is the making of the English clubs,which is also not true. I have given you all the background of what the arguments are and what the demands are. Now do me a favour. Give me anything that you have, proving that the English clubs and them alone are at the root of this. Evidence. Not just your own wild accusations. I have quoted  exactly how the rules stick together. Now, instead of just saying that it is a load of bullshit, please show me exactly where I have it wrong. Not that I have much hope of this happening, TBH. It will go the same route as the story about the Stade Francais game. You will quietly disappear without proving anyhing.

I really do get confused about Mike's discussion's re European Rugby !

I also do get slightly angered by his constant comments re England and the English. This whole " Rule Britannia " thing is a nonsense. Ceradyne has rightly tried to put the record straight there, discussing the history behind that. It was a song about our naval forces, BRITAIN'S Navy, that's all of us, not just England, going out to " rule " the seas. It's a rallying cry. So what ? All countries have them. Are we to be lambasted because we do ? Do you want to start trawling through every countries songs and slag them off or is it just Britain, ostensibly the English ?

I will add that one version of that song continues from " Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves,

                                                                                                    Britons never, never, never shall be,

                                                                                                    Married to a mermaid at the bottom of

                                                                                                   The deep blue sea "

Gosh, that's rather propogandist, isn't it ? !

What it actually tells us, is that it was a song to rally the troops, give passion and pride before battle and, that version was to give them humour, to stop them thinking of their ships being sunk. They didn't want to end up skuttled.

When we sing that song today, it's just a song. To me, it's just a part of history. I don't clutch my chest, nor do I if I ever sing my National Anthem. Like others I can think of.

If I ever bother to sing these songs, it's out of respect for the occasion. That is all.

Now to the Rugby.

Ceradyne is still correct. It is an unfair system. We do have to qualify. It means we do have to finish Top 6, so there can be no slacking off at any stage in the season. And they get a huge share of the pot at the end of the tournament, yet it is proven that the Frencah and English Clubs are, with a couple of exceptions, the biggest draws. So, there is no fairness in the system and they are angry about that.

BT Sport have only done what Sky did years ago. I didn't agree with that then, I don't really agree with this now.

But Ceradyne, they showed 3 Premiership matches, one on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

We have big crowds and good fans here in England. I can speak for myself, born and bred a Northampton fan. I have been a paid up Member of my Club for 25yrs, I am 39. I was an unpaid fan for a couple of yrs before. I went to matches home and away or watched the second team throughout my later School years. My Uncle played for Northampton, I have had many friends play there and at all of the local teams, I have watched many of the Junior sides over the years. My eldest brother played and had England Schools trials but suffered a Rugby ending concussion the week before playing for his School, so that was very sad for him. I've been fortunate to meet many players over the years, from all countries, and have counted some as my friends. So I come from a real Rugby family.

It might not be the fanatical game it is in other countries, but that doesn't mean we don't love it as much or know as much about it as others. It just means things are different here. That's all.

The FFR have vetoed the breakaway game, as will the RFU, I'm sure and this will go to the Courts. I think that is inevitable. But I know that something had to change. We just have to wait and see what that change is. It seems that the Celtic countries are keen to join, so ?

As for England leaving Scotland and Italy high and dry...why do we have to sort them out anyway ? I think you'll find we have ploughed money into Scottish Rugby enough times already, thanks ! And we played Italy when no-one else cared to. When will SA plough money into Namibia ? Ivory Coast ? Ghana ? Etc Etc ? Mike ? They play a lot of Rugby and are keen to improve......I know because the charities from England keep going over to help them !!!! When will you guys give them a hand ? !!! Or will we have to do that as well ? The beastly old evil English, hey ?

And who actually started this whole merry go round of Rugby professionalism that has got us in this sorry mess ? I think we need to look closer to your home, not mine.

well said Becs!

Becs, I know that it is actually off-topic and do not want to side-track the thread. I don't know if you saw the recent insert on the One Show where they actually discussed the origins of the song, and performed it in it's original form at the exact same spot where it was perfomed the very first time. Specific mention was made to the fact the the it actually was "rule" and not "rule", urging them (as you have said) to go out and rule the seas again. It definitely never implied that Brittain was "ruling the waves" at the time and was actually telling to go out and "re-capture" the waves.

I must have missed one of the games, but I am sure that it was only the ones that I mentioned. Be that as it may. Three games out of the six that were playd. I think that BT bit off more than they can chew. They are trying to fit too much into three channels.They are trying ti do with BT1 & 2 and ESPN which sky is doing on Sky1,2,3 and 4 ans Skysportsnews and Skyf1. They have the monopoly on the Aviva and then they only show half the games because they also have to deliver on their much vented football capture, but there they are also trying to fit in there Epl games and still show the French, Italian, German and Spanish football as well as UFC. They do not have the capacity for it at all.

No, I didn't see that, but that was interesting ! Yes, that is it's exact meaning, to re-capture, to fight for them, or more or less lose everything and be taken over ourselves. What can you do ? You have to fight for yourselves, don't you ? It's just a poetic way of saying things :) 

No it was Worcester/Quins on Friday night, Us on Saturday afternoon ( Saints/Glos ) and Saracens/Bath on Sunday. They are showing three every weekend. They said all along that would be the deal, more or less, weather permitting and all that !

We shall see how it all pans out. But this really is how the whole Sky issue started, many were very angry about it initially and things were very up in the air.

As far as I am concerned, no International sport should ever have to be paid for. It should all be on terrestrial tv. Free for all.

I have not watched  Rugby League in 20 years because of all the slimy back door pay TV super league shennanigans that went on ,after the whole Rugby League  garbage my father-in law went from paid up member of the Brisbane Broncos and QLD state -of origin fanatic to barracking for the NSW team and Manly .Thats what these sorts of deals can do to the staunchest of fans .

Unfortunately pay TV is at the heart of all professional sport. The media companies are the ones making the money and they are the ones putting in the money to make more money, so they can put in more money, so they can make more money........................ get the picture.

My beef with BT is that they are not a media company and never was, and probably never will be. Their traditional basic core business has taken a huge knock due to technology and they have to find ways and adapt. The cellular phone and internet has given them that knock. In addition the media companies were geared to (due to technology at their disposal) break into the BT market and even overpower them in a way, by offering better broadband services. Their sole purpose of getting into TV was to try and recapture some of that market share. I wasn't around when Sky started off, but I assume that it was fairly similar to DSTV in SA. They have for a very long time had the monopoly and could do their R & D at their own pace without having to worry about opposition. I haven't been to SA for three years now, and I believe that there are competitiors who arte now slowly coming in. Fact is that DSTV is already up and running and have all the expertise and infrastructure. BT is not going to be real competition for Sky in a very long time. Not even for Virgin Media, who is not really a service provider in the same sense as Sky. They are more of a distributor of the content. Theor edge is the better equipment/technology and their fibre network.

So. Ou Maaikie. Since you have now discovered that you may had this one wrong, is there a possibilty that we could revisit a few remarks and just set them straight/ Just asking. I was thinking along the lines of the following ones:

• Can you read English? Read that first article again. The English clubs are the root of the problem. The French and English Rugby authorities supports the Heineken Cup concept - the English Clubs are leading the efforts to destroy the Cup concept.
   

• In the process they are in fact advocating the concept where the Irish, Scottish and Italian Clubs must "qualify" for admission to the competition - essentially an effort to cut them out of the competition.. As I read the original article as well as your posted article what is being proposed is a kind of structure for the Irish, Scottish and Italian clubs equal to the Grade 1 Division of the CC - where they would play on lower level and then be given a chance to play play-offs to qualify for inclusion the next year in the top competition.

• And beside that your comment on Great Britain is extremely funny. Remember the term "Britannia rules the waves"" Nothing about England ruling the waves. That in fact has nothing to do with the present environment - it was and is a concept to illustrate that it is an effort by the English clubs to rule European Rugby.

•  By the way your senseless arguments about the qualification issue for Heineken Cup participation makes no sense - other than the fact that they insist on having more than 6 teams in the competition and is prepared to shaft everybody else in the process. English clubs have not got anywhere near winning the Cup over the last two years - the furthest they got was the quarterfinals - never even reached the semi-s

• But they want 7 teams in the competition - come hell or high water The furthest away we stay from the chronic lot of schemers the better for us.

• And please don't continue to distort what I write. If you don't understand about the local political issue - you are indeed daft beyond imagination.

The Germans invented the concentration camp, in German West Africa. We " copied " them during the Boer War. Look that up to, if you don't believe me. They used it against the indigenous population.However, this was the sort of thing that happened during civil war in most countries, keeping the women, children, elderly and infirm in an encampment or within their villages where they were usually starved out and the villages torched. It was common practice. In SA , our army was dropping like flies as a result of illness more than as a result of fighting. They had little rations and so did, any locals they had taken hostage, so to speak, to crush morale of the opposition in this case, would have been at the bottom of the pile for sharing the food source. I suppose you are also aware that there were marches in the streets in England against both the War in Africa and the now called Concentration Camp element by the British people ? That Queen Victoria herself was aghast when she was told ? And that she too was very unhappy about the War in general ?

As far as I am concerned, I hate War, I hate any life squandered and I could never treat any human being in that way. However, the English, and the British, have treated each other in such a manner throughout their history, so one would doubt they would have any compunction about treating anyone else in such a way.

And yes, Mike, Blair was a liar. He is a liar and I did not Vote for that man. Nor would I ever Vote for a man like that. I rue the day that the fools in my country did. But I'm glad you are exonerating the liar George Bush from his part in everything ! He was only the driving force, but of course, he's not English ! And, should the day come when Blair is rightly in his place at the Hague, Bush will not be at his side, because America doesn't have to abide by the edicts of International Law.

So I will say this one last time, I hate War. I have never killed anyone, nor started a War. I don't intend to start one. I am sorry we ever started any and I rue the day we ever had an Empire. I'm also a Vegan, I don't believe in killing anything !!!

How did we get to this, from a discussion about European Rugby, you might well ask ? !

MIke, as I said, I hate wars, I think them futile and I am sorry that your family suffered as it did. I really am.

And yes, I know all about Emily Hobhouse. We English women are rather known for making a nuisance of ourselves regarding causes and injustices. It's what we do and we it quite well in the main. So, as you see, it was not a popular War and certainly not a popular aspect of the change in warfare, being the first time we had used such a thing outside a Civil War type situation.

And, as I will reiterate, it is all something I find particularly distasteful, even within the boundaries of War.

I think the comment alleged from our former Queen Mother is rather a strange one given that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was barely Scottish at all. Her title and family home might well have been in Scotland, but Scottish they really weren't !! As is the way, it's always handy to play up to the Celtic roots, particularly when one becomes a Royal, to keep everyone in the realm on side. And it's amazing how it actually works ! In a way, it's quite funny ! But she wasn't actually very Scottish at all.

Anyway, it was announced on Sunday that the Anglo /French Clubs wouldn't take part in the HC or the talks to save it and they annouced their new tournamet there and then. They have had interest from a number of outside interests and the Celtic nations. As I also said, the FFR have vetoed the French clubs involvement and I should imagine the RFU will block the English clubs too.

I also expect the matter to end up in the courts. As I already stated :) We shall see what happens now.