After adopting the FFR-NRL Convention Paul Goze , president of the League, said that the limit of thirty international matches imposed concerned “very few players in September last year.”
How The Agreement She Received?
Paul GOZE: 80% of voters voted for. A number of clubs had any comments on it and had to vote against. Some felt that the agreement could reduce their clubs too.
What Points Have To Wince Presidents Or Their Representatives?
PG: The only substantive changes that are the result of palaver for 20 years, is a group of 30 players who has a limited number of 30 matches played per season. After that, it begs the question: how many players have previous seasons, this bar reaches 30 games?
There were seven last year, five who exceeded and two that were at the limit. The discussion naturally focused on the fact that of the five, there were four of Toulouse … But this is not a drastic measure, it concerns very few players. This is a safeguard that was already almost by itself.
How Would You Define The Climate That Led To Your Meetings With The Federation?
PG: Ok but manly, to use an expression of rugby then. There were two parts, each defending their interests. So it is normal that there was friction. We also had in common. As wanting to defend the professional rugby clubs, to maintain it at the highest level. And the team of France is a showcase of French rugby, so it must have results that are up to our sport. Both parties were aware of the need to achieve these goals, with relatively divergent interests. I think we arrived at a balanced thing, I do not see any major changes for the next convention.
Between The Back Of The European Cups, One Of The Convention, Do Not You Get Into A Culture Of Conflict With The Federation?
PG: This is a temporary situation. A year and a half ago, there were no negotiations therefore no conflict, it is not disputed is pleasure to deal with. Now, this will subside. It remains the European Cup but one day it will be resolved and there will be no tension.
Are There Were Discordant Voices In The General Assembly On The Decision Of The Steering Committee Of The League Of Triggering A New Tender For The TV Rights Of The Top 14?
PG: There are always people who ask for an explanation, which is quite normal. There were lots of questions about what was said in the newspapers and that does not reflect the truth. There was a little disinformation campaign on two points. The first is that we say that the League has changed his mind at the last moment. Not at all, throughout the negotiations I said the same thing to Canal +. At no time there was disloyalty, I was very clear, I always gave the same figure. The second point is that we say that our tender was modeled on proposals for Canal + that came out in the press. This is incorrect, but it can confuse the minds and believe that Canal + could sue (in court). But I do not see anything on Canal + could support this action.
Canal + Seems Quite Bitter.
PG: I think it is rather a posture that when lost (in the negotiations OTC, which triggered the tender, Ed) trying to find explanations. But this is the game of business.