BT buy Premiership rights from next season

by Guest Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:56 am

First topic message reminder :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures/20493.php#.UFBpfLKPV5B

Another subscription to pay by the sounds of it. If Sky are losing the rights though, it'll mean no more Barnes

by HammerofThunor Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:44 am

If the ERC continues it will be without the English (therefore over as we know it). If the English are involved it will be with a new organisation.

Gibson, so how will it end up in European court? The Clubs haven't sold anything that isn't theirs. It sold rights for something that doesn't exist yet.

What I want to know is whether a new TV deal was actually agreed in the ERC or not? For PRL to come say that no such deal was agreed at that or later meetings suggests they're sure. Some's going to be getting the Tippex out on the minutes.

Fly, my comment over my prioritizing the premiership over Europe comment was regarding the idea BT's biggest deal is for the premiership and the PRL won't (and I wouldn't want them to) risk that for Europe. I would like a European cup, Ideally with as many nations as possible (the 3 tier comp sounds great to me). But it's certainly not the end of my world if non exists that involves the English.

Sin, how exactly has Wheeler not acted in the benefit of the ERC in his role as director?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:17 am

It will be interesting to see what happens next. If I was charged with negotiating obo the Celtic and Italian unions, I'd be looking to isolate the English clubs as fast and as far as possible. Give some concessions to the French to keep them involved, and let the English clubs go their own way. Deja vu? I think that the Englah clubs would experience a climb-down again. I wonder to what extent this BT deal provides the ammunition too. In Mcafferty's statement, he makes mention of potential benefits to certain nations, but no mention of the French, and a BT deal is going to mean nothing to the French - they have no reach there. A possible chink in the armour for the Italo-Celts to exploit?

by **LondonTiger** Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:25 am

The flip side Asbo is that ERC have revealed they have sold the rights for a tournament without guaranteed entry of the two biggest markets. This gives English and French clubs extra clout.

Shows the whole thing has been about money. Who provides it and who gets to rake it in.

by Toadfish Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:58 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens next. If I was charged with negotiating obo the Celtic and Italian unions, I'd be looking to isolate the English clubs as fast and as far as possible. Give some concessions to the French to keep them involved, and let the English clubs go their own way. Deja vu? I think that the Englah clubs would experience a climb-down again. I wonder to what extent this BT deal provides the ammunition too. In Mcafferty's statement, he makes mention of potential benefits to certain nations, but no mention of the French, and a BT deal is going to mean nothing to the French - they have no reach there. A possible chink in the armour for the Italo-Celts to exploit?

Not sure how significant it is (if at all) but should be noted that BT also aquired the rights to show the top 14 starting next season.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:28 am

Toadfish wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens next. If I was charged with negotiating obo the Celtic and Italian unions, I'd be looking to isolate the English clubs as fast and as far as possible. Give some concessions to the French to keep them involved, and let the English clubs go their own way. Deja vu? I think that the Englah clubs would experience a climb-down again. I wonder to what extent this BT deal provides the ammunition too. In Mcafferty's statement, he makes mention of potential benefits to certain nations, but no mention of the French, and a BT deal is going to mean nothing to the French - they have no reach there. A possible chink in the armour for the Italo-Celts to exploit?

Not sure how significant it is (if at all) but should be noted that BT also aquired the rights to show the top 14 starting next season.

Toadfish, is that right? Do you know if that is in the domestic market, or only outside the domestic market? I can't believe that BT have any toe-hold whatsoever in France itself - there's no way the French would let them for a start!

by Toadfish Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:36 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Toadfish wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens next. If I was charged with negotiating obo the Celtic and Italian unions, I'd be looking to isolate the English clubs as fast and as far as possible. Give some concessions to the French to keep them involved, and let the English clubs go their own way. Deja vu? I think that the Englah clubs would experience a climb-down again. I wonder to what extent this BT deal provides the ammunition too. In Mcafferty's statement, he makes mention of potential benefits to certain nations, but no mention of the French, and a BT deal is going to mean nothing to the French - they have no reach there. A possible chink in the armour for the Italo-Celts to exploit?

Not sure how significant it is (if at all) but should be noted that BT also aquired the rights to show the top 14 starting next season.
Toadfish, is that right? Do you know if that is in the domestic market, or only outside the domestic market? I can't believe that BT have any toe-hold whatsoever in France itself - there's no way the French would let them for a start!

I haven't got the article in front of me but it was in the Telegraph this morning and my understanding was that it was just for the rights to show the top 14 in the UK.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:39 am

Hmm, thanks, I'm not sure how that would count for very much then

by geoff998rugby Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:40 am

Sounds to me that the most likely scenario is no ERC

No Anglo-French competition

The Pro-12 making feelers to the Saffers for a new competition

BT and French TV controlling their respective leagues
ESPN or Sky showing any new competition they may emerge

Sky could easily lose out big time in this shake up

by Big Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:49 am

Toadfish wrote:
I haven't got the article in front of me but it was in the Telegraph this morning and my understanding was that it was just for the rights to show the top 14 in the UK.

It would be interesting to see who has the rights to show the TOP14 and premiership in France. I wouldn't expect BT to show anything there, but if PRL and TOP14 are dealing with the same people for rights in the UK and the same people in France it may suggest that this is much more co-ordinated than some would like to think (even if the French are allowing the English to make the first move and take the flak). At the time PRL and TOP14 gave their notice to ERC to withdraw I assumed that they had already agreed an alternative competition if they didn't get what they wanted, to me it's looking more and more likely that that is the case, and that is in effect what PRL would have sold the rights for.

by HERSH Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:58 am

So the HC is dead!

I said it couldn't last.

by **LondonTiger** Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:05 am

HERSH wrote:So the HC is dead!

I said it couldn't last.

Still predicting Bath will win it in the next 3 years? Wink

by thebandwagonsociety Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:16 am

LondonTiger wrote:The flip side Asbo is that ERC have revealed they have sold the rights for a tournament without guaranteed entry of the two biggest markets. This gives English and French clubs extra clout.

Shows the whole thing has been about money. Who provides it and who gets to rake it in.

Does it? It is still unclear. ERC are claiming that each Union had agreed for the deal to be made and progressed on the basis of that agreement. What PRL have done, is try and usurp the RFU as the controlling power of english rugby by selling their rights from under the RFU nose. The real fight is at that level. Do the RFU control all english participation in europe? And did PRL do wrong in selling tv rights that they were not in control of? Or does the agreement between the RFU and the PRL give all control over tv rights to the PRL? In which case the whole Heineken Cup as we know it was never set up properly. Considering both sides of the RFU and PRL have been so adversarial over the years, this looks like it will be decided in court (definitely so when there is in excess of €100m up for grabs).

So far the PRL have put themselves in the driving seat. What can the RFU do to wrestle back control? What actions could they take to really hobble the PRL?

by Kingshu Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

more here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19580339
the intresting bit is
"And ERC insisted that Premier Rugby's European deal with BT is "in breach both of International Rugby Board regulations and of a mandate from the ERC Board itself".

Which means that it could be the English national team could be drawn into any dispute about the rights, and reprecussions

by **LondonTiger** Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:31 am

bandwagon - pretty sure RFU ceded all voting rights to PRL within ERC a decade ago.

Kingshu - as you would expect we are getting a lot of guff and hot air from both sides. ERC claim they are the only people allowed to run a pan-european competition - interesting legal concept certainly.

by AlastairW Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:32 am

I know speculation are rampant, but there really isn't enough information out there yet to make any predictions.

There's speculation you'll need to swap all your media & coms to BT, there's talk that BT Vision will be a channel you can sub to through your dish/cable/free view box.

'future euro competitions' seems to have chinese whispered it's way to HC is dead, long live the inevitable English/French boo-yaa Celts. Celts bemoaning the greedy English and French, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

There's just not enough information at the moment. I suspect this is a storm in a tea cup though, i'll cancel Sky Sports and ESPN, sub to BT, the Mrs will moan, then end up as gripped by games as i am ... The more things change ...

by **LondonTiger** Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:35 am

AliW,

why let the lack of facts get in the way of a rant and a conspiracy theory Very Happy

by Islingtonv2 Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:39 am

Kingshu wrote:more here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19580339
the intresting bit is
"And ERC insisted that Premier Rugby's European deal with BT is "in breach both of International Rugby Board regulations and of a mandate from the ERC Board itself".

Which means that it could be the English national team could be drawn into any dispute about the rights, and reprecussions

Presumably PRL's stance is that, having served notice to leave the ERC table in 2014, any negotiation allowing for them to stay and for ERC to continue to exist as we know it will include provision that PRL can drive its own media deals. At the same time they will look to overhaul the Heineken Cup to suit themselves. What incentive do the other unions have for agreeing to this? Well PRL are claiming to bring a big slab of BT money to the table which can then be shared out. Its a big gamble on their part.

I don't see how PRL have breached any ERC rules since the rules from 2014 have not even been drawn up yet. And if, as we surely all hope, agreement is reached between all parties then the IRB is very unlikely to be required to pronounce on the issue.

by Guest Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:42 am

Post 2014 if a participant doesn't wish to abide in a contract then the ERC is irrelevant, it appears the ERC management company are scrabbling to save their Dublin rugby gravy train. The R12 side have already stated they are not willing to negotiate. All standard practice at setting expectations before a board meeting.

You can't blame the R12 for sticking to their HC guns as they get substantial rewards for minimal input. Everyone concedes on what makes the competition commercially viable and if folk don't negotiate then parties seek alternatives. The BT offer pays out regardless of what form of European competition because the jewel in the crown for BT is the AP.

This has been at least nine months in the planning, I very much doubt the PRL have not covered all bases.

I don't like that it has got to this but I can't say I am surprised.

by Big Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:45 am

I can't really see how their agreement is in breach of IRB regulations. For a competition to take place the unions for each country with clubs involved do (I think) have to agree to it as well as the clubs, so it would be against regulations if the clubs started the tournament before they got that. However, PRL are entitled to say that will only get involved if they can sell rights for their own matches and that if they do do that the rights will go to BT.

It's a tough one. I don't like the way ERC is run and I can understand the English and French clubs complaints, but equally I don't like PRL and think they are the main thing holding back English rugby.

Agree with the bandwagon society that the real struggle is perhaps between the RFU and PRL. The reason that regrettably PRL will probably come out on top is that the RFU are a bunch of spineless halfwits. RFU got into this position by not getting up to speed quickly enough when the game went pro, and they will suffer if they don't get to grips with it. They had the opportunity when the EPS agreement was negotiated to replace the LFA, but no surprise they lacked the spine then as well.

To ditch PRL, or at least rein them in to a sensible level, I see a straightforward (but potentially painfull) path. Essentially, tell PRL that if they want to act as independent commercial organisations they are free to do so. Ringfence the premiership and let them organise whatever matches and tournaments they like - give them the independence that they seem to want. Then refuse to give them a penny, no EPS or equivalent - England just take the players when they need them and are entitled under IRB rules. Instead, treat the championship as the new top tier of English rugby - after all ringfencing doesn't put something at the top, it puts it apart. Spend the £15-£20million (or whatever it is) propping up those teams and helping them to grow. Wouldn't be too different to the way the existing premiership teams grew when the game went pro the first time, but this time get it right. Make sure the clubs develop the facilities, make that (as well as player availability) a condition of funding. Make sure that the season and contract structure has everyone pulling in the same direction not constantly fighting. Perhaps encourage things by centrally contracting the England players and putting them in the championship so it starts to draw the fans... etc, etc. In the short term it would hurt, but long term it would sort things out. The premiership could then either carry on in a league-esque fashion as a seperate entity or die a death, at which point the clubs would need to play their way back into the championship on the RFUs terms. Just my view.

by Portnoy Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:46 am

RB broadcasting regulations appear to be expressed at http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/23/42323_pdf.pdf

And the meat is:

13.2 No Rugby Body, Club or Person or any combination thereof may
negotiate or enter into or benefit from any contract for the grant of any
Broadcasting Rights in respect of any Match or Matches except with the
express written consent of the Union within whose territorial jurisdiction
such Match is or Matches are to be played, such consent to be in the
absolute discretion of the Union.
13.3 No Rugby Body, Club (or Person with knowledge of such breach) may
take part in any Match to which Broadcasting Rights have been granted in
breach of the provisions of Regulation 13.2.

Maybe there is another bit of regulation somewhere, but prima-facie the ERC claims that the breaking of IRB regulations appear to be tenuous to say the least.

by AlastairW Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:55 am

LondonTiger wrote:AliW,

why let the lack of facts get in the way of a rant and a conspiracy theory

Yeah, facts, pesky little bar stewards when all you want to do is rant!

by thebandwagonsociety Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:00 pm

LondonTiger wrote:bandwagon - pretty sure RFU ceded all voting rights to PRL within ERC a decade ago.

Kingshu - as you would expect we are getting a lot of guff and hot air from both sides. ERC claim they are the only people allowed to run a pan-european competition - interesting legal concept certainly.

The more that comes to light, the more I wonder about the RFU. Do they have any power? Maybe just turn the England team into another member of the PRL and be done away with the RFU altogether?

by XR Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:01 pm

With the rights for all premiership rugby going to BT and ESPN currently holding the Top14 rights...i wonder if Sky will try and get the Pro12 so they have at least some rugby coverage...unless they start showing more of the English second tier?

by ScarletSpiderman Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:04 pm

gcBlues wrote:With the rights for all premiership rugby going to BT and ESPN currently holding the Top14 rights...i wonder if Sky will try and get the Pro12 so they have at least some rugby coverage...unless they start showing more of the English second tier?

If it goes to sky, then we will see if all this 'being on free to air reduces attendances' nonesence.

by XR Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:04 pm

yeah that's what i was thinking, it would also maybe give the welsh premiership exposure as BBC/S4C could pick up those games and give them a bit more money.

by Big Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:06 pm

AlastairW wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:AliW,

why let the lack of facts get in the way of a rant and a conspiracy theory

Yeah, facts, pesky little bar stewards when all you want to do is rant!

Nothing wrong with a good rant gentlemen. Lets a bit of steam out, and as a parent of young children I officially have a lot of steam!

by thebandwagonsociety Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:11 pm

Big wrote:I can't really see how their agreement is in breach of IRB regulations. For a competition to take place the unions for each country with clubs involved do (I think) have to agree to it as well as the clubs, so it would be against regulations if the clubs started the tournament before they got that. However, PRL are entitled to say that will only get involved if they can sell rights for their own matches and that if they do do that the rights will go to BT.

It's a tough one. I don't like the way ERC is run and I can understand the English and French clubs complaints, but equally I don't like PRL and think they are the main thing holding back English rugby.

Agree with the bandwagon society that the real struggle is perhaps between the RFU and PRL. The reason that regrettably PRL will probably come out on top is that the RFU are a bunch of spineless halfwits. RFU got into this position by not getting up to speed quickly enough when the game went pro, and they will suffer if they don't get to grips with it. They had the opportunity when the EPS agreement was negotiated to replace the LFA, but no surprise they lacked the spine then as well.

To ditch PRL, or at least rein them in to a sensible level, I see a straightforward (but potentially painfull) path. Essentially, tell PRL that if they want to act as independent commercial organisations they are free to do so. Ringfence the premiership and let them organise whatever matches and tournaments they like - give them the independence that they seem to want. Then refuse to give them a penny, no EPS or equivalent - England just take the players when they need them and are entitled under IRB rules. Instead, treat the championship as the new top tier of English rugby - after all ringfencing doesn't put something at the top, it puts it apart. Spend the £15-£20million (or whatever it is) propping up those teams and helping them to grow. Wouldn't be too different to the way the existing premiership teams grew when the game went pro the first time, but this time get it right. Make sure the clubs develop the facilities, make that (as well as player availability) a condition of funding. Make sure that the season and contract structure has everyone pulling in the same direction not constantly fighting. Perhaps encourage things by centrally contracting the England players and putting them in the championship so it starts to draw the fans... etc, etc. In the short term it would hurt, but long term it would sort things out. The premiership could then either carry on in a league-esque fashion as a seperate entity or die a death, at which point the clubs would need to play their way back into the championship on the RFUs terms. Just my view.

Nice path. You could even go a bit further, not demand the players in the IRB windows but don't pick any players from members of the PRL. If a player wanted to be an international, then when their contracts are up with the PRL member, they could stay in the PRL or transfer to a championship side. Sure why would it have to be just an RFU thing. If the PRL go solo giving the finger to the Unions, the same approach could be adopted by all Unions towards players playing within PRL members. Scots, Argies, Irish, Welsh, Samoans, Fijians and English internationals could exit the PRL, destroying the 'quality' of their league, impacting future tv deals and reducing the money going to the clubs. Then give PRL member clubs an option of getting into the championship if they exit the PRL.

by geoff998rugby Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:18 pm

Part of this is exclusive rights to all PRL team games in the UK.
As written that is claiming that BT have exclusive rights to any Jeff team playing away in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Can't see that sticking legally.

by SecretFly Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:27 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:Part of this is exclusive rights to all PRL team games in the UK.
As written that is claiming that BT have exclusive rights to any Jeff team playing away in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Can't see that sticking legally.

Yep, it would make it look like distinct Unions, and distinct regions under their umbrella, would be compelled to honour a contract they were not party to, didn't sign, didn't read, and didn't negotiate their own share of. "Just play the game guys and stop moaning - you've no choice, the PRL signed the deal".

If that's the argument (and i'm not sure it is - will have to re-read their statement) but if it is, it's bizarre stuff.

by Pot Hale Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:31 pm

Recwatcher wrote:Post 2014 if a participant doesn't wish to abide in a contract then the ERC is irrelevant, it appears the ERC management company are scrabbling to save their Dublin rugby gravy train. The R12 side have already stated they are not willing to negotiate. All standard practice at setting expectations before a board meeting.

You can't blame the R12 for sticking to their HC guns as they get substantial rewards for minimal input.

It's the Pro 12, not R12 - he said pedantically.

Besides that cavil, when or where has the Pro 12 said anything about all this? Which union or group of unions have stated (publicly) that they are not willing to negotiate?

For example, here's the IRFU's stance as quoted by their Chief Executive in July:

"IRFU chief Philip Browne admitted the union may have to give a little to preserve the competition’s future. One assumes we will reach some sort of accommodation through a negotiation process and that will, I assume, begin this autumn. The French and English clubs have made their intention to withdraw from the Heineken Cup and there is a two-year period in which we can reach agreement with them in relation to the competition or alternatively the competition ceases. The reality is, like any negotiation, there will have to be give and take from both sides. I don’t think anyone has laid out their position yet, it is early days. But inevitably there will be some sort of change in which either the competition is structured or the finances are shared. Those are the two variables, one assumes, and we’ll have to wait and see."

There seems to be a running assumption that the four Pro 12 unions have all opposed any change already, and this is why the English/French clubs are putting forward their position/threats.

Where have they said so? Anyone?

by Portnoy Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:34 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:Part of this is exclusive rights to all PRL team games in the UK.
As written that is claiming that BT have exclusive rights to any Jeff team playing away in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Can't see that sticking legally.

That, I suppose, is the nub of it Geoff. I have been a long-time adversary of PRL's capacity to think things through properly (summary - https://www.606v2.com/t33845-rackety-perfomance-of-the-sweet-chariot-along-the-road-or-how-the-rfu-and-prl-don-t-think-things-through ).

The deal with BT I think, won't hold water in even Wales, Scotland and NI as the IRB regulations appear to restrict their TV deals to their home Unions.

But to me the key issue is not this deal in itself, but who blinks first in the ERC meetings beginning next week. And I think the PRL may have antagonised the Celtic Unions so much that the entire HEC concept folds and everyone may lose.

by HammerofThunor Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:11 pm

The RFU have granted the PRL the right to sell the club tv and sponsorship rights, with the money going straight to the clubs. The ERC agreement to pool the TV rights was before this so the only way for the PRL to gain access to those rights would be a vote (not going to happen). So instead they're preemptively sold their rights to European games and therefore this would have to be included in any new deal.

I expect this will turn out that they've sold the UK (and possibly Ireland) rights to the English club home games. The RFU have given this right to them and the ERC don't have control over European games from 2014. I doubt very much BT have any involvement with France (no idea about Ireland, is BT active there?). So how would it bother the French clubs? They would be able to sell the UK rights to their home games to someone (probably BT) and do what they want with the French market (possibly add in the French TV for English games for the French away games).

I'm not really sure why people are complaining about the RFU. They ceded control of the club tv rights a while ago (LV tagged onto the RFU Sky deal because no-one wanted it). All the PRL have done is set in stone that they will be responsible for selling their own TV rights for Europe BUT the money still goes into a central pot and split evenly.

by SecretFly Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:38 pm

By all means correct any misinterpretation you see below. TV deals are complicated business - obviously! And a few sentences from me aren't going to extract the intricate detail.

But here goes: Okay..it sounds reasonably reasonable for a party to say look, we want control over our own games and we've decided we're giving the rights to OUR games to TV company 1. That means that TV Company 1 will televise all our games home and away but the money they've offered us for those rights will be going towards the total European pot, shared out between all of us. The only benefits of us doing this is that we have a single broadcaster taking care of our domestic AND our European identity. Fans won't be confused - the platform for English club rugby will be the same, BT are paying us well for that right and they in turn are benefitting from that right. BT's and our MAJOR independent benefit will come from domestic league and not the European aspect - which as we've stated, will be shared out equally amongst participants from the three leagues.

Now, my question or point is that should another league and another broadcaster come to the table with an equally plausible and equally strident proposal - say France - saying they insist that their chosen broadcaster (TV company 2) has exclusive rights to broadcast all their European games? That's when the logic breaks down. How can two broadcasters have exclusive rights to one game, with two sides playing on any given day in any given country? That's when people have to play ball and adapt the written-in-stone proposals IF they actually want a European competition to go ahead. No?

by **rodders** Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:42 pm

I thought BT had Top14 rights too?

That just leaves the Rabo teams to negotiate with Sky.

by maestegmafia Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:43 pm

Marc Watson CEO of BT Vision wrote:"We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament with a fantastic new format, with, we hope, all the best clubs," he told sportspromedia.com.

"And we've secured, from the English Premiership, the rights to that for the UK.

"That tournament will be the successor to the Heineken Cup, which is a very successful tournament.

"The Heineken Cup, under its current contract, has another season to run, and that will be the end of it, and we are looking to set up a brand new tournament from then.

"We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we've bought give us an opportunity to do that.

"We are hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2015 in the UK. It's a great opportunity in the two years running up to that, we think, to grow the sport.

"It's a sport that has got a long way to go. We were attracted by the idea of growing with it, and helping it to grow in the UK."

by geoff998rugby Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:44 pm

As I have said Portnoy I can sense Shane Logan on the phone as we post talking to his Natal Sharks counterpart saying 'What about we set up a competition between the Pro12 and the main Saffers teams'

The gossip on Friday could be interesting !

We could sell it to a TV company as well - Sky seem to be freed up Very Happy

by maestegmafia Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:44 pm

The mystery continues...

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:47 pm

SecretFly wrote:By all means correct any misinterpretation you see below. TV deals are complicated business - obviously! And a few sentences from me aren't going to extract the intricate detail.

But here goes: Okay..it sounds reasonably reasonable for a party to say look, we want control over our own games and we've decided we're giving the rights to OUR games to TV company 1. That means that TV Company 1 will televise all our games home and away but the money they've offered us for those rights will be going towards the total European pot, shared out between all of us. The only benefits of us doing this is that we have a single broadcaster taking care of our domestic AND our European identity. Fans won't be confused - the platform for English club rugby will be the same, BT are paying us well for that right and they in turn are benefitting from that right. BT's and our MAJOR independent benefit will come from domestic league and not the European aspect - which as we've stated, will be shared out equally amongst participants from the three leagues.

Now, my question or point is that should another league and another broadcaster come to the table with an equally plausible and equally strident proposal - say France - saying they insist that their chosen broadcaster (TV company 2) has exclusive rights to broadcast all their European games? That's when the logic breaks down. How can two broadcasters have exclusive rights to one game, with two sides playing on any given day in any given country? That's when people have to play ball and adapt the written-in-stone proposals IF they actually want a European competition to go ahead. No?

I thought BT or PRC had clarified that it was Euro home game results that had been sold?

In any case, it's possible that BT and the French broadcaster could each have country-specific exclusive rights

by SecretFly Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:49 pm

rodders wrote:I thought BT had Top14 rights too?

That just leaves the Rabo teams to negotiate with Sky.

Do they? Well that's news to me...why wasn't that mentioned here. It wasn't making sense...it does now! Wink

Yep, the battlelines have been well and truly drawn then and the HC as it stands is no more if that's true. Oh well - back to sandles and sackcloth for us. They were nice shny days whilst they lasted.

by **rodders** Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:52 pm

I think it was mentioned fly, if not I've made it up... but I'm not really creative enough to do that, I'm more of a piggyback poster/threadjacker type of a guy Wink

.

by SecretFly Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:55 pm

rodders wrote:I think it was mentioned fly, if not I've made it up... but I'm not really creative enough to do that, I'm more of a piggyback poster/threadjacker type of a guy .

Same here Rodders...and add 'nuisance, idiot, gobshite' to my brief Wink

by Portnoy Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:55 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:As I have said Portnoy I can sense Shane Logan on the phone as we post talking to his Natal Sharks counterpart saying 'What about we set up a competition between the Pro12 and the main Saffers teams'

The gossip on Friday could be interesting !

We could sell it to a TV company as well - Sky seem to be freed up

Maybe PRL have been on the blower to offer a better deal - via Nigel Wray. Who knows?
Maybe England/France and Ireland are quietly stitching up a deal?

by maestegmafia Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:57 pm

Does seem a shame that he who has the most cash makes the rules...

In my many years on this planet I must say that invariably ends in a poor result and a failing franchise.

We will have to see what happens. But I think a demise of the HEC will be a sad day, and I do not trust the English and French clubs to organise a decent, fair European competition that will be as good as the HEC has been for the last 16 years.

by Brendan Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:58 pm

am i right in saying that no tournament that has more then 3 european countries can be organised without ERC approval.

As such any competion that is organised during the coming two years break that even if it isn't played till 2014.

I think that if the french and english go it alone the Rabo has to make a new competion with the rest of europe and get that growing and lock out England and France. You can't have the Rabo going back cap in hand no matter what happens

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:59 pm

Portnoy wrote:
geoff998rugby wrote:As I have said Portnoy I can sense Shane Logan on the phone as we post talking to his Natal Sharks counterpart saying 'What about we set up a competition between the Pro12 and the main Saffers teams'

The gossip on Friday could be interesting !

We could sell it to a TV company as well - Sky seem to be freed up

Maybe PRL have been on the blower to offer a better deal - via Nigel Wray. Who knows?
Maybe England/France and Ireland are quietly stitching up a deal?

It's worth pointing out that Murdoch (via SkyNZ and Foxtel) pretty much "owns" the NZRU and ARU. So if they're encouraged to jump Whistle

SuperSport in SA OTOH don't have any News International connections.

by Pot Hale Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:01 pm

SecretFly wrote:By all means correct any misinterpretation you see below. TV deals are complicated business - obviously! And a few sentences from me aren't going to extract the intricate detail.

But here goes: Okay..it sounds reasonably reasonable for a party to say look, we want control over our own games and we've decided we're giving the rights to OUR games to TV company 1. That means that TV Company 1 will televise all our games home and away but the money they've offered us for those rights will be going towards the total European pot, shared out between all of us. The only benefits of us doing this is that we have a single broadcaster taking care of our domestic AND our European identity. Fans won't be confused - the platform for English club rugby will be the same, BT are paying us well for that right and they in turn are benefitting from that right. BT's and our MAJOR independent benefit will come from domestic league and not the European aspect - which as we've stated, will be shared out equally amongst participants from the three leagues.

Now, my question or point is that should another league and another broadcaster come to the table with an equally plausible and equally strident proposal - say France - saying they insist that their chosen broadcaster (TV company 2) has exclusive rights to broadcast all their European games? That's when the logic breaks down. How can two broadcasters have exclusive rights to one game, with two sides playing on any given day in any given country? That's when people have to play ball and adapt the written-in-stone proposals IF they actually want a European competition to go ahead. No?

It is very confusing. Particularly, when it seemed that BT clarified that it meant games played in England, and then PRL came out and said English club games with no qualification.

Exclusive rights for coverage go hand-in-hand with territorial rights. BT Vision have bid and won the exclusive UK TV rights for broadcasting games for English teams in a European comp - within the UK. Thus, the only broadcaster with rights to show their matches - home or away - in the UK would be BT. This wouldn't prevent, for example, RTE, doing a deal to exclusively show all Irish club games (including against English teams) in the territory of the Republic of Ireland. Equally, Toulouse v Leicester, for example, would be shown exclusively in the UK by BT, and could be shown exclusively by TF1 in France.

by bathmad Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:11 pm

Love the fact that the Sky Sports website reports its renewed contract with ERC without any mention of BT/Premiership argument.

Biased journalism perhaps?

by HammerofThunor Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:12 pm

It's the T14 UK rights that were held by ESPN. It shows the French clubs have been speaking to BT. But it says nothing about the French European rights.

SecretFly, the ERC don't have the right to sell European TV rights from 2014 on. All the members would have to extend the participation agreement for that to happen. I think it's fair to say that's not going to happen (as the PRL are part of that and also the RFU, who I expect to side with the PRL). The PRL DO have the rights to sell their European games from 2014 and on.

So you're two situations,
The ERC/SKy deal is valid if the PRL sacrifice their rights to their European games and are in breach of contract with BT (the broadcaster of their league).
The PRL/BT deal is valid if the PRL don't sacrifice their home game rights to the ERC.

by Brendan Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:13 pm

If the rabo countries played the SH teams 3 extra times per year how much much would that raise for the unions. There would be 9 extra weeks.

As the unions have the money I don't see why the Rabo unions can't raise more through that

by Kingshu Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:16 pm

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18588.php

ERC and Sky Sports Agree new four year extention till 2018

Think this will all end up with the Courts, Sky, ERC, PLC, BT

by Sponsored content