ONE DOES not need to have a very long memory to remember the infamous Mayfair Agreement. That was produced last year in England as the supposed cure-all for the problems in the club game in England. It was launched with a flourish of trumpets: they all hit the wrong note. It died its death, short if not painless. The clubs saw to that, as expediency ruled before the ink was dry. Reading through it now, almost 12 months on is an interesting and revealing exercise.

But now yet another document has emanated from the brains trust across the water, the Rugby Football Union (RFU) and English First Division Rugby (EFDR). That too, is a revealing document that, for unmitigated cheek and arrogant presumption, takes some beating. It was produced after the recent meeting between representatives from the RFU, EFDR, The French Rugby Federation (FFR) and representatives from the French league clubs, Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR).

The trouble from the English perspective is that the French, while they listened to the English proposals presented by Tom Walkinshaw, representing the EFDR, Francis Baron, the chief Executive of the RFU and a man wet behind the ears when it comes to experience of rugby legislation, and Brian Baister, the chairman of the RFU Management Committee, have stated that they did not reach any such definite agreement as outlined in the document.

They do not see it, as the document states, as "a joint proposal on the future structure of the European Cup".

Quite apart from the actual proposals for a revamped European Cup, note one of the notes supporting the proposal is grossly offensive and casts doubts on the integrity of those who have run the European Cup (ERC).

England had no involvement in the European Cup or European Shield competitions this season. How about this proposal and the implications therein: "EFDR believes that the enclosed management structure in a new `clean' company is the ideal format. However, the FRR, the RFU, the LNR and EFDR jointly wish to sanction for example, Arthur Andersen to carry out a full audit and due diligence into the `old' ERC to establish whether the company could pass `a clean bill of health' review to satisfy the parties. This process should enjoy full access to information and be completed within two weeks. For the purpose of this proposal we shall refer the new or revamped organisation as ERC II."

That coming from the likes of Baron, amounts, in my view, to the height of impudence. This is a man who only a few weeks ago was telling the world that his union would not honour the agreement they had signed in relation to the distribution of the television money that caused England to be expelled from the Five Nations series. Bill Beaumont, a decent man in every respect, had to be called in to save the day for Baron and company. It seems some people judge others by their own standards.

Yet again, of course, Baron and his ilk had to do a hasty backtrack. This latest attempt by the English clubs is a continuation of the ongoing brazen efforts to take control of the game.

I would, however, make a suggestion to Baron. How about a full inquiry into ALL the circumstances pertaining to the clandestine television deal between the RFU and Sky a few years ago to give full assurance that everything was "clean " in relation to that deal and and all involved in it.

For next season they want a minimum of five English clubs, six from France, one from Italy, two regional sides from Scotland, two from Ireland, two clubs from Wales, the defending champions, Ulster, and one more club from a play-off between the club that finishes sixth in the English first division and the third qualified Welsh club in the cup. The ERC II offices would be located in Monaco or Zurich and they propose 12 directors: one union-appointed director per participating country, one club-appointed director for each participating country and a managing director.

And now comes the sting in the tail. "Playing qualification should be the same in all countries.

Clubs and provinces for the purpose of player squads and corporate status need to demonstrate their autonomy from the unions after an initial period of two years." Now dwell on the implications contained in that. Is elaboration really necessary? Who will run the game? Let us not forget either that the English clubs are currently pursuing a case in the European courts and that their parent union has been fined £60,000 by the International Board for failure to support the unions and the board on this issue and on the issue of disclosure.

THE proposed financial distribution also makes for interesting reading. Thirty per cent each for France and England, 12 per cent each for Scotland, Ireland and Wales and four per cent for Italy. There is no provision for the European Shield but the suggestion that the desirability of a second tier competition will be reviewed after next season. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the season after next under the proposals in this document, Ireland, Wales Scotland and Italy could have just one representative each in the Cup, based on what is termed "meritocracy" in relation to the quarterfinalists. But France and England will be guaranteed four clubs each.

Fran Cotton, a member of the RFU council, described this document as "the most dangerous document ever produced in the history of the game. This is about the governance of the game and all that is implied in it. Just think of the implications of what is contained in that document".

Then Cotton questioned the right of Baron, Baister and Walkinshaw to act without consultation with the RFU council. "It is nothing short of outrageous. This is an attempt to take control of European rugby," he said. "A document such at that is destructive and divisive," he added. "Those proposals have not got even a remote hope of succeeding."

Syd Millar, one of Ireland's representatives on the International Board, said: "I agree totally with what Fran Cotton has said. This is one more insidious but not very clever attempt to destabilise the ERC, the European Cup and the Five Nations Championship.

"The implications in that document and some of the proposals contained in it are a telling commentary on the real aims of those who produced it. Some of these people constantly reveal their total inexperience and lack of appreciation of what is best for the game in these parts.

"What they are asking is, in effect, like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas."