AEB: An Arrogant English Bastard's guide to the European Dispute

I’ve been reading Planet Rugby.  I know, it was a bad idea.  Some people’s hypocrisy defies belief.  Apparently “the English” are greedy, power hungry and don’t care about the growth of the rugby beyond their own personal fiefdoms.  All unlike the ever wonderful unions which are only concerned with getting more people to play the sport and have lovely Corinthian values and motives.

Now obviously that is bollocks.

But generally telling people they are stupid and ending there doesn’t tend to convince them.  I know, shocker!

So let’s have a look at some of those claims. 

Greed:

Jean-Pierre Lux, chairman of the ERC after his Zimbabwean election in 2011, had this to say in the Telegraph this week:

 
“ERC’s contribution to the Unions and clubs last season was €44.3 million (£37 million) – double the figure from 2005-06.
 
Under the current Accord, 85 per cent of the distribution is shared among six European countries with the remaining 15 per cent reserved for meritocracy based on which countries’ clubs progress furthest in the tournaments.
 
So from the nine European weekends last weekend, Premiership Rugby earned €10.8 million (£9.1 million), while the French clubs who were more successful, earned €12.1 million (£10.2 million). England and France are both guaranteed 24 per cent of the shared fund while 13.25 per cent goes to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, with 12.25 per cent reserved for Italy.”
 
Some might read that and say “hey you arrogant English bastards, you already get double everyone else so where’s the beef you grasping twats?”
 
But let’s look at those figures in more detail.  £37m is distributed to the clubs last season with 85% of that in “the share fund”.  So £37m x 0.85 = £31.45m.  

Now PRL on behalf on behalf of ERC receive 24% of that, or £31.45m x 0.24 = £7.548m.
 
£7.548m is then split by PRL’s policy of giving everyone equal shares so individual clubs get 1/12^th of that, or £7.548m x 0.083 = £628,999.99. 
 
So whilst Lux might talk of English clubs gaining so much because there are so many clubs they only receive £629k each from ERC’s coffers. 
 
Now how about the Scot’s? They only receive 13.25 percent, or £31.45m x 0.1325 = £4,167,125.  However they only have Glasgow and Edinburgh to support.  That means that Edinburgh get half of that cash, or 0.5 x £4,167,125 = £2,083,562 and fifty pence.
 
So Leicester receives 30% of the ERC money that Edinburgh gets. 
Under the French and English proposals every team in the new-Europe would receive the same income from the “share fund”.
 
Now please tell me, who is being greedy?  On what planet is everyone receiving a fair and equitable portion greedy?
 
Power hungry:

Also called a power grab by some.  I’m not denying that clubs are after more power in new-Europe.  But what is the status quo and what is the proposal by the clubs?
 
Currently England and France have 5 votes on ERC’s board with Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy having 2 votes each.  

In England those 5 votes are split half and half between the RFU and the clubs’ body PRL; in France the split is 1 vote for the FFR and 4 votes for the clubs’ body LNR, more on that later; in Wales the WRU and the clubs’ body RRW gets 1 vote apiece.  The other Unions/Federations keep all the votes for themselves.
 
So the bodies that represents 30 of the 38 clubs who actually play in ERC’s competitions (79% of competitors) gets just 8.5 of the 18 votes (47.22%).  This means that an overwhelming majority of opinion is still not enough to force changes through ERC’s current structures. 
 
Take the last election for ERC Chairman.
 
It was Jean-Pierre Lux up against Peter Wheeler.  Wheeler had the support of the clubs bodies PRL, LNR and RRW as well as the old boys at the RFU.  You might think that that means he won.  After all that is 10 of the 18 votes, a clear majority. 
 
But no.
 
You see the RFU and FFR only “loan” their votes to their clubs.  The FFR were not happy that one of their own blazers was about to be voted out by their own clubs.  Sacre bleu.  So using an obscure clause in their agreement with the LNR over “the higher interests of French rugby” the FFR pulled their votes backed Lux and caused this whole mess. 
 
Clearly the clubs are not happy with being disenfranchised in this way and having no control over their own future.  Who can blame them?  Would you be happy to have no say in the running of your life? 
 
The new proposals are that the competition is run by the people who are actually in it.  We wouldn’t deal with the likes of Phillip Browne (IRFU), Roger Lewis (WRU) or Andrea Rinaldo (FIR) but with Mick Dawson (Leinster Chef Executive), Mike Davies (Scarlets CEO) or Amelia Zatta (Treviso President).
 
Now look I’m not denying this is a bit dickish.  But the point is that it is no more dickish than the current status quo where the likes of the IRFU have a snobbish disdain for the muck and sweet of club rugby and refuse to deal with us. 
 
If the provinces in Ireland are in unison with the IRFU as much as they like to say then what exactly is the problem?
 
There are the same number of English clubs in ERC as from Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy combined.  With no clubs being better or more worthy than any other, all clubs should have an equal say in their own futures.

I cannot see how anyone can argue, with a straight face, that it is right that the views of 30 clubs is worth less than the views of 8.
 
Growth of the game:

Yeah, yeah, yeah we’ve all heard it all before.  The unions are wonderful organisations that fund all the grass roots development and only have the goal of spreading the gospel of rugby union where as the evil clubs want to gobble up all the dosh and refuse to spend a penny on the grass roots.
 
We in Leicestershire know how wrong that is, our club does a huge amount to engage and enthuse people into the game of rugby at all levels.  The Prima Tiger Cup is 20 years old and now sees teams from half the country compete.  The club is intimately involved with schemes like Paying 4 Health and the Leicester Sports Partnership Trust. 
 
This isn’t an anti-RFU point as they also put a huge amount into grass roots rugby, just look at their All Schools initiative.  It is just dismissing this myth that the clubs have no interest in the wider game.
 
So we know that all parties are interested and involved in the growth of the amateur game.  But what about the World game?
 
Well under ERC’s auspices we have seen Italy lose its pro-league and we have seen them snub the Romanian champions Timisoara, on the grounds of travel difficulties.  Timisoara’s airport handles over a million passengers a year, roughly the same as Cork.  As a guide the city is roughly the size of Leicester.  It is vital for new-Europe’s credibility that they embrace teams from Romania’s professional Superliga.

The need for a third tier of European Rugby is palpable.  There is a hotch potch of regional competitions like the North Sea Cup, for teams from Germany, Holland and Belguim; the Regional Rugby Championship featuring sides from Hungary, Austria, Serbia, Croatia and  Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose 2013 season starts this Saturday and the Baltic Rugby Club Union for sides from North eastern Europe.
 
Last year German domestic and North Sea Cup Champions Heidelberger RK won a unifying tournament between the champions of all three tournaments but have withdrawn from this year’s North Sea Cup seeing no point in playing in a competition that has no pathway to the Amlin Challenge Cup.  Heidelberg is a town the size of Northampton or Bath, both European Champions, so these emergent pro clubs in countries like Germany must be supported.   But ERC run by its endless committees have badly failed.

Premier Rugby is treated with scepticism by many and outright hostility by others but look what it managed to achieve in only three months this summer with the World Club 7s.  They managed to bring together sides from 5 continents including the Russian clubs so far ignored by ERC and also clubs from America.  They haven’t talked about including these nations.  They’ve done it.
 
So for anyone reading I hope you see that the English clubs aren’t the devil and that whilst you might not like how the media have portrayed the negotiations clearly their demands are reasonable and no less than anyone else would want in their situation.  So let’s have an end to name calling and agree that we’re right, okay?

RFU's Idea of Justice should shame the game

Tigers chief executive Simon Cohen has blasted the RFU as "absurd" after their panel of blazered buffoons tied themselves in knots by excluding the J.P.Morgan Asset Management 7s and pre-season trip to Geneva where we face Montpellier from its reduction in head coach Richard Cockerill's ban.  The RFU have ruled that these games aren't "meaningful".

I'm sure that will go down well at J.P. Morgan to know that the RFU consider their support of our great game to be meaningless.

I'm sure it will also help the game in Switzerland to know that a game between two Heineken Cup group rivals, just 7 days before the start of the Top 14 season, is also as meaningless as a game of jumpers for trylines in the park.  

I've already written about the stupidity of banning someone for saying the word "fuck" in conversation so won't go over that again.

But the RFU really does plumb new depths of incompetence with every stroke.  The RFU have decided that the J.P. Morgan 7s and the Montpellier game are meaningless jollies (of which to be fair they have ample experience) because they "will not involve six British Lions players or South Pacific players".  So on that basis the LV Cup will be excluded from any future bans as none of our international players play in that?  

But wait!  In the initial hearing the RFU used a quote from Cockerill that the LV Cup was a "mickey mouse cup with mickey mouse refereeing" to damn him as insolent.  So which is it?  Are games without your internationals meaningful or not?  It seems to me that the RFU is having its cake and eating it too.  

When it wants to harm Cockerill and the Tigers games without your internationals are worthy of their consideration but when that attitude should benefit you they volte face and decide in fact no, only "proper" First XV games count.  And they decide what is a First XV game.  Very fair.  Very impartial.

The Montpellier fixture is the only pre-season game to be deemed worthy of broadcast on TV, and again from the initial hearing we know how important the "image" of the game is to the watching "millions" of fans.  But again the RFU change their tune when it becomes clear that the dastardly villain in front of them might possibly gain from their own self important opinions. 

The Blazers cover themselves in glory again when they describe the Ulster and Jersey games as significant because they are "before paying spectators".  Perhaps any Tigers fan who has a ticket to tonight's 7s should email the RFU (discipline@therfu.com, we know how much they love emails these days) with an invoice as they have clearly been mistakenly charged for this event which is obviously meant to be completely free to enter.  

The Montpellier match in Geneva is charging as much as £280.00, to the Blazered Old Farts that might be pocket change but to anyone in the real world that is clearly a large amount for what is a premium game between two of Europe's powerhouses.

On the BBC Radio Leicester "Leicester Tigers Rugby Hour" (Link here), Ian Cockerill (no relation) suggests that the RFU's conduct has been so disgraceful that Tigers could report them to the Bar Standards Board for censure under the Human Rights act.  Frankly nothing would make me happier than seeing the reaction of all the London tory toffs to Tigers using their bete noir of the Human Rights Act to get one over on the stuffed shirts in Twickenham.

Clearly any rational justice system would include ALL the pre-season games, as for example Calum Clarke's, Dylan Hartley's or Neil Back's bans at various points did, rather than pick and choose the games in order to justify banning Cockerill from the Heineken Cup.  Unfortunately we don't have rational justice; we have the kind of traditional British justice that brought us the Guildford 4.  For shame RFU.

Full Appeal Document here.

Tigers Simply Must Appeal Appalling RFU Cock Up

Richard Cockerill’s ban by the RFU yesterday and today’s release of the written judgement is a dark day in the history of justice within the sport. This kangaroo court where the RFU acted as prosecutor, jury and judge has been a travesty of natural justice where settling old scores and showing that “something must be done” has overridden a fair and impartial system.

The RFU case falls apart almost immediately when prosecutor Andrew Green declares that

“millions watched the game live on television”

Not true. 120,000 watched the game live on ESPN. When the very first paragraph of evidence contains an easily checked howler such as this you have to wonder about the ability to check or develop any of their own evidence.

It then goes onto detail, rather vaguely, the “offensive, inappropriate and unprofessional” language used. Cockerill peppers his language with fuck and fucking, which no one involved with the game batted an eyelid about, the “turning point” is when whilst in full flow of a rant he says “at half time I’m going to tell them (Tigers players) to smash the cunts (Saints players) because they aren’t getting any protection”

Where does the implication that telling his players to “smash the cunts” implies illegal play come from? A legal tackle or an aggressive ruck clear out are often regarded as having “smashed” someone. 

Given this was an off the cuff remark in the middle of a longer diatribe about player welfare and the referee’s responsibility to check the TMO I think it is being given undue weight. 

It was a throw away remark designed to emphases the Saints foul play, they had this tactic if you’re not going to do anything about it we’ll do the same. This sentiment is often expressed with regards to the rucks or scrums, after all the referee’s word is law and if that tackle is only a penalty that affects the balance of whether the borderline tackle is worth making or not, it is hardly a controversial coaching tactic especially as Cockerill had no intention to follow it and was merely saying it off the cuff for effect.

We also have the context of this being the 3rd time Flood had been hit without the ball in the first 23 minutes, the similar late tackles occurring in the 2011 Semi Final between the two sides which only stopped when Flood reacted by striking Dylan Hartley and the Calum Clarke incident in the previous season’s LV Cup Final where Clarke snapped Rob Hawkins elbow with an off ball assault.

Cockerill’s point was a threat of illegal play it was saying that if these are the rules you play in Tigers-Saints games then two will play at that game.

The casual TV viewer, 120,000 rather than the millions the RFU claimed, had the benefit of Ben Kay’s dispassionate analysis and several super slow-mo replays, the match officials did not. Given the apparent seriousness of Flood’s injury, a spinal board had been called and Flood had still not moved at this point, becoming extremely angry that the TMO was not called is entirely reasonable.

You’re not human if you don’t react to your captain, your leader and your goal kicker lying unmoving on the turf and the match officials having already blown for a penalty. Some people feel the TMO would have reversed the penalty as Dan Cole’s knee appears to make contact with Flood’s head, however the rules are very clear that no ball = late tackle. Lawes commitment to the tackle probably would have spared him a yellow card and all this unpleasantness would have been avoided entirely.

What Cockerill wanted was his players protected and given that context he was well within his rights to be angry that the TMO wasn’t called on.

Using Dorian West’s comments and the e-mails from angry Saints fans as evidence, as the RFU did, is beyond a farce. Both were angry that their own inspirational captain had, in their view, been wrongly dismissed for dissent and were keen to “get one back” on Cockerill. West had previously escaped censure for verbally abusing Leicester captain Geordan Murphy after the previous year’s LV Cup final. Using the e-mails of an angry mob of fans is such a bad idea I barely know where to start. Now that is an accepted part of the RFU arsenal I expect every Tigers fan to flood the RFU with e-mails every time one of our own is slighted. It is a terrible precedent to set that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If the RFU want to play at quasi-judicial hearings then they should play at them properly, West’s comments had nothing to do with the matter at hand and shouldn’t have been submitted as evidence.

Using press cuttings is an equally appalling idea. The RFU are meant to be the guardians of the game not meek sycophants who will believe and react to anything they read in the Daily Telegraph. What the press report is not a record of fact it is just a subjective opinion, the panel dismissed Cockerill’s opinion that swearing is no big deal but considered their own subjective opinion, that it is a big deal, as gospel.

Stuart Teerhege, the fourth official, admitted in his evidence that there was no criticism of the match officials and that he did not feel threatened or intimidated. He did not think the language was out of the ordinary, only the idea of “smashing” the opposition if the referee refused to protect the players.

The idea of “taking matters into your own hands” is certainly not new, and in rugby folklore is often celebrated. Think back to the “99” call which, even worse, was to “get your retaliation in first”. But that is just the hypocrisy of the press and rugby public and not Teerhege individually to be fair to the man.

The RFU then submit the Saints fans emails and yet more press cutting comparing Dylan Hartley, who was sent off for persistent criticism of the referee rather than his swearing, and Cockerill. Quite why a separate case for a different offence should be allowed to be entered as evidence is beyond me. Hartley’s offence should have had no bearing on either Cockerill’s guilt or his sentence as they were fundamentally different offences. Hartley questioned the referee’s competence repeatedly on the field of play, whilst Cockerill used what some consider vulgar language in a heated manner.

The document goes rapidly downhill after setting out both the RFU’s and Cockerill’s case. The justification of their ban is equally worrying as it laughable. The RFU claim that Cockerill was “insidious”; this seems to apply motives that just were not there, “insidious” means to progress subtly and gradually with harmful effects.

Whatever Cockerill’s outburst was it certainly wasn’t subtle or gradual. It was an outpouring of passion that many believed was misplaced but to slander Cockerill’s character with claims that this was some form of treachery is bizarre. It later goes on to say that his actions were borne from “genuine concerns for his players”, so which is it? A genuine outburst in frustration and concern or a sly attempt to influence the match officials? It can’t be both surely?

The panel then states that the extent of the TV audience plays a part in its decision, the TV audience that was quoted as millions but was actually barely more than the number of spectators in the stadium. The RFU’s simply made up numbers have been used as a justification for the sanction. I’d love the game to be that popular but the bare facts do not support the assertions of the RFU’s prosecutor.

In terms of the sanction the RFU also used a letter sent to Cockerill in December after he was unhappy with Andrew Small’s lack of a second yellow card against Gloucester despite conceding 7 more scrum penalties after the first card and 4 more after the second warning.

I fail to understand why a, apparently confidential though seemingly not, letter in which Cockerill was not even charged let alone convicted with any offence is used to justify a lack of “respect”. If Cockerill had offended then why not have a hearing then and determine his guilt? This letter was not a ban or even an attempted to ban him, so again the RFU wants to play at the quasi-judicial game without following all the rules.

Equally the tremendous irony of the panel’s massive disrespect to Cockerill’s 30 year career at all levels of rugby in the following sentence is as hilarious as it is offensive:

“Certain of the game’s core values, namely respect, discipline and sportsmanship, seem to us to have passed Mr. Cockerill by”.

Cockerill was never sent off or even cited in his playing career and his teams have always had tremendous disciplinary records rarely straying from the cleanest end of the disciplinary pool.

Actions speak louder than swearwords.

The irony-ometer is once again off the scale when the panel declares that:

“If subjectively he feels entitled to behave in this manner, that appears to be enough justification for him to do so”

The obvious counterpoint seems to be that the panel’s subjective assessment that he isn’t entitled is enough to ban him.

There are no examples in the law book as to what is or isn’t offensive language or unprofessional behaviour so there is no objective measure on which to judge Cockerill.

The fact the 4th Official wasn’t offended means the language wasn’t offensive, case closed, the fact he wasn’t surprised and several “fly on the wall” documentaries, going back to 1997 at least, show similar language means it isn’t unprofessional. Fuck and cunt are clearly normal words in the professional rugby environment.

The panel has fallen into the trap of using its own world as a barometer of taste and decency rather than the world in which professional rugby inhabits. This language was not out of the ordinary and there was no abuse of a match official. Tigers simply must appeal this disastrous verdict and the dangerous precedents as far as natural justice within the game it sets out.

Full Judgement Here

Local Lads to be England Mascots

This Saturday at Twickenham all England players will be accompanied by an Under-12 player from the junior club where they started their rugby education.  Bayley Smith from Hinckley will be with Manu Tuilagi whilst Charlie Jackson from South Leicester will accompany Dan Cole.  This is a terrific idea from the England management, both as a great memory for the kids involved and a thank you to the grass roots clubs that do so much work for Rugby.  Given Hinckley and South's record for producing talent this might not be the last time these boys take to the Twickenham field!

15. Alex Goode - Jake Herrington (Cambridge RFC)
14. Chris Ashton - Aaron Povall (Orrell St James ARLFC)
13. Manusamoa Tuilagi - Bayley Smith (Hinckley RFC)
12. Brad Barritt - James Sugden (Old Albanian RFC)
11. Mike Brown - Jordan Jones (Salisbury RFC)
10. Toby Flood - William Ormiston Stewart (Alnwick RFC)
9. Ben Youngs - Rob Mackenzie (Holt RFC)
1. Alex Corbisiero - Jack Reid (KCS Old Boys RFC)
2. Tom Youngs - Oliver Jaggard (Holt RFC)
3. Dan Cole - Charlie Jackson (South Leicester RFC)
4. Joe Launchbury - Ewan Johnston (Barnet Elizabethans RFC)
5. Geoff Parling - Josh Crozier (Stockton RFC)
6. Tom Wood - Finn Griffiths (Barkers' Butts RFC)
7. Chris Robshaw - Archie McMillan (Warlingham RFC)
8. Ben Morgan - Esme Harper-Coles (Dursley RFC)

Replacements
16. David Paice - Peatrick Shehy (Reading RFC)
17. David Wilson - Will Etchells (Westoe RFC)
18. Mako Vunipola - Cameron Jackson (Thornbury RFC)
19. Mouritz Botha - Finn Cassell (Bedford Athletic)
20 James Haskell - Josh Henderson (Maidenhead RFC)
21. Danny Care - Jack Booth (West Park Leeds RFC)
22. Owen Farrell - Dylan Anglesea (Wigan St Patrick's RLFC)
23. Jonathan Joseph - Billy Willis (Derby RFC)

Goneva named in Fijian tour squad

The Fijian Rugby Union has today named the squad for the Flying Fijians 4 game November tour, including Tigers dynamic new winger Vereniki Goneva.  There are 2 capped internationals against England and Georgia plus a mid-week game against Gloucester.  There is also the non-cap game against Ireland.  In some 1970s throw back Ireland has decided that the Fijians aren't worthy of a test game, even though there is no other Ireland match that weekend.  Standard arrogance from the Irish, yet still a disgrace.  I wonder if the Dublin based IRB would have allowed another team to protect itself from losing ranking points before the December Rugby World Cup draw.

http://www.fijilive.com/sports/rugby/news/2012/09/36-named-in-flying-fijians-nov-tour-squad/29136.Fijilive

TOUR FIXTURES:
11/10 - England
11/13 - Gloucester
11/17 - Ireland A
11/24 - Georgia

FORWARDS:
Campese Ma'afu (Cardiff Blues)
Penijamini Makutu (Nadroga)
Vasi Rarawa (Suva)
Seremaia Naureure (Nadroga)
Tale Tuapati (Southland)
Vili Veikoso (Suva)
Deacon Manu (Llanelli Scarlets)
Manasa Saulo (Suva)
Setefano Somoca (Nadroga)
Tevita Cavubati (Tasman)
Seko Kalou (Nadroga)
Apisai Naikatini (Toyota)
Leone Nakarawa (Tailevu)
Api Ratuniyarawa (North Harbour)
Josefa Domolailai (Pau)
Iliesa Ratuva (Nadroga)
Malakai Ravulo (North Harbour)
Waqabaca Kotobalavu (Lautoka)
Nemani Nagusa (Nadroga)
Netani Talei (Edinburgh)

BACKS:
Kelemedi Bola (Lautoka)
Nemia Kenatale (Southland)
Nikola Matawalu (Glasgow)
Jonetani Ralulu (Nadroga)
Metuisela Talebula (Bordeaux)
Josh Matavesi (Worcester)
Josaia Lotawa (Suva)
Ravai Fatiaki (Worcester)
Vereniki Goneva (Leicester)
Watisoni Votu (Lautoka)
Timoci Matanavou (Toulouse)
Maikeli Mocetadra (Suva)
Aisea Natoga (Nadroga)
Waisea Nayacalevu (Stade Francais)
Samu Wara (Western Force)
Simeli Koniferedi (Nadroga)

Tigers first academy league fixture confirmed

Sale have today confirmed their fixtures for the forthcoming Academy League, also confirming its structure.

It will mimic the A league with Northern and Southern Conferences, with all 14 RFU Regional Academies featuring.

Tigers fixture with Sale has been announced as being in Leicester on February 9th.

Wells and Price named for England Under 20s

Academy forwards Harry Wells and Tom Price have both been named in England's Under 20s Elite Player Squad for the 2012/13 season.  

Price, a 6'9" lock originally from Stratford-upon-Avon, retains his place from last years squad.  Born on 22nd January he will be one of the oldest players in the age group which has a cut off date of the 1st of January.

Wells, a lock-cum-flanker is a Peterborough native and this is his first call up by England at any level.