FFR boss fails despite best efforts
FFR (Federation Francaise de Rugby) boss Bernard Lapasset has revealed his disappointment at the LNR’s decision to go ahead with its boycott of the Heineken Cup next year and outlined the extraordinary lengths he went to in an attempt to keep Serge Blanco and the French clubs in European competition.
“Overall, I’m bitterly disappointed,” said the FFR President.
“I came with a proposal which would recognise French clubs on the world rugby stage, yet allow them to remain unified (with the English clubs).”
One of the main sticking points for the clubs during the sixteen months of renegotiations of the Paris Accords has been the division of share capital in the ERC (European Rugby Cup).
Each of the six nations will have 16.66 per cent of the shares while the FFR have agreed the give the LNR (Ligue Nationale de Rugby) 50 per cent of its shares.
However the RFU adamantly refused, citing the failure of Premier Rugby and itself to replace their own Long Form Agreement which is due for renewal in 2009.
According to Lapasset, the FFR were ready to offer the LNR virtually all the French shares for two years in order to compensate for Premier Rugby’s position.
“We offered 15.66 per cent of the French shares in the ERC for the next two seasons with the FFR holding onto just 1 per cent,” he added.
“Because the English wouldn’t give the 50 per cent requested by Premier Rugby, we offered to give the French clubs 93 per cent of the French share on a two year loan to compensate for the RFU’s refusal.
“This would have ensured that clubs would have held the same shares for two years until the end of the long form agreement.
“My proposal was a response to each and every point of the LNR’s project. It would have restored trust and provided the possibility to move forward leaving the English clubs and their union two years to find an agreement.
“French rugby would have been able to move forward in solidarity, since at the moment we can’t count on English rugby,” conceded Mr Lapasset.
The FFR president also made reference to his own position. It is known that Lapasset is in the running to replace Syd Millar, the IRB President who is stepping down at the end of the year.
There is no doubting that this may be seen as a killer blow to his chances of succeeding Millar and a reason perhaps, why the head of French rugby tried to downplay his own role in this saga.
“I never had the power to bring about this decision even if I showed my own strong principled position,” Lapasset said.
“But we had to try and resolve the entire problem, not just what happens in French rugby.
“We are going to see if the FFR can sign the accords on our own. This one year boycott has pushed us into a complex phase.
“There has been a real loss of trust, between the English clubs and their union and between French clubs and ERC. We have to come through this and find a new path in order to move forward.
“What is sure is that we will take the blame for this. But I failed despite this strong proposition.”
But was there ever any possibility of agreement? The LNR signed a deal earlier in March this year with Canal+ over broadcasting rights of the Top 14 season 2007-2008.
Fixture congestion was one of the main focal points of Blanco’s initial boycott threat and his refusal to accept the IRB’s offer to play Top 14 games during the World Cup suggests that this boycott was always going to happen.
Part of the broadcasting deal with Canal+ appears to have guaranteed that there would be no Top 14 games during the World Cup so this would have made it impossible to participate in the Heineken Cup next season. This suggests that maybe this boycott was realised, not at Orly airport yesterday, but several weeks ago in the broadcast contract negotiations. Which would surely make all talk of shareholdings and concern for the RFU a sideshow and nothing more?
All talk from the French side of the Channel is of a one-year boycott despite the fact that there is little prospect of the English sorting out their shareholding problems before 2009. Added to Blanco’s adamant stance that there will be no alternative fixtures for the French clubs, the argument that this is all merely a diversion becomes more compelling.
By Ian Moriarty
