Warring parties far apart
A dramatic day began when the former chairman of the RFU claimed English clubs could be legally bound to participate in next season’s competition and concluded with angry statements being issued by ERC and Premiership Rugby.
Premiership Rugby followed their French counterparts, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), by expressing surprise that the ERC had claimed after a board meeting on Wednesday that it had been agreed they are the only body who can organise European competitions.
Yet ERC reacted angrily to that statement, insisting “no structure other than ERC would be appropriate to organise European tournaments going forward”.
And they also slapped down Premiership Rugby and the LNR, telling them “to cease public ultimatums and enter into genuine and decisive negotiations aimed at strengthening European club rugby” — seemingly not seeing the irony in issuing a public ultimatum demanding a halt to public ultimatums.
But the impression was of two sides at war with each other and unable to even agree on what had been said in a board meeting, making it ever more unlikely that an amicable agreement can be reached.
The RFU, English rugby’s governing body, also weighed into the debate by urging the two sides to enter into amicable negotiations — but hinted they would support their own clubs if no agreement could be reached.
It was a bitter end to a toxic week, sparked on Tuesday when Premiership Rugby and LNR announced they will participate in their own competition next season rather than agree any deal to save the Heineken Cup.
They are frustrated at the qualification system and the distribution of money generated, but insist there is no turning back from their decision.
An ERC board meeting the following day led to an announcement that discussions would continue “with everything on the table” — but it is the ERC’s announcement that they will organise any new competition that has upset Premiership Rugby.
Peter Wheeler, Premiership Rugby’s representative on the ERC board, stated: “I was surprised by the press statement issued after the meeting on 11 September 2013 of the board of ERC of which I am a member.
“I would make the following points about the content of this statement.
“No decision was made by the ERC board to reiterate that European club rugby competitions must necessarily be organised by ERC.
“Secondly, concerning the proposal of some of this board to organise a meeting of the stakeholders, it is the sole right of the individual parties (unions and league organisations) to take a view on any such proposal.”
This then drew an angry response from ERC, who issued a statement on behalf of Jean-Pierre Lux, its independent chairman and Derek McGrath, the chief executive.
“Together we confirm that it was agreed at last Wednesday’s board meeting in Dublin, that ERC, as a signatory to the current Accord, should be involved in all future negotiations aimed at the formulation of a new Accord for the 2014/15 season and beyond.
“To that end, the board requested that ERC should convene the next, and future, meetings, and that it should consider the appointment of a mediator to move the negotiations forward towards a successful resolution. This process is now under way.
“The board further agreed that bearing in mind the commitments the company has already entered into, no other structure other than ERC would be appropriate to organise European tournaments going forward.”
There is a glimmer of hope, though, as Martyn Thomas, the former RFU chairman, claimed English clubs could be legally bound to compete in next season’s Heineken and Amlin Challenge cups — a claim that has not been denied.
And RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie has urged an amicable solution while suggesting he would support the English clubs.
In the final statement of a tumultuous day, he said: “In what are complex and passionate on-going negotiations concerning the future of the European competitions, the RFU is encouraging talks to continue in earnest.
“We are, and always have been, supportive of the Premiership clubs seeking greater meritocracy across the competitions and appropriate financial distribution.”




