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 HERSH Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:47 am

What a load of tosh Munk.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:49 am

munkian wrote:We're on in this mess because English and French 'giants' have stopped winning the HC and want to take their ball home.

If it was a Leicester/Toulon final we wouldn't be discussing this

But the English made noises about money back in 2007 when the HC was dominated by Eng/France. This is mostly about cold hard cash. The stuff about qualification is window dressing.

by maestegmafia Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:50 am

Firstly the TV rights sold by PRL finish in 2015 not 2014, that is why the RFU are investigating whether this sale is legal.

Secondly if rights are sold and those rights cause an upset that make a disadvantage to another union involved in European Rugby that union can complain to the IRB then the IRB get involved.

Considering both Scotland and Italy might possibly be cut out of the deal, I imagine they will go to the IRB. By moving Scots and Italians to the second tier you demolish their national rugby.

I also imagine that Wales and Ireland would likely suffer financially as this deal is really only designed to help the PRL's clubs, so likely that the WRU and IRFU will also involve the IRB.

France just seem amazed that this deal has been struck, threats have been made to the demise of a brilliant European Championship without any consultation, when they had seemingly agreed to chat this over amicably with all unions involved a little later this month.

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:53 am

Does anyone have an idea of the financial breakdown of European competitions?

How much does each club benefit from being in the Heineken Cup financially compared to the Amlin challenge cup?

Would be a nice to have an actual proper breakdown of what everyone brings to the table.

Anyone have any stats or figures?

by HERSH Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:55 am

So the WRU, IRFU, SRU and the Italians are going to go and moan to the IRB about how unfair it is that these guys had the foresight to secure a big payout for selling their product and securing its future for years to come.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

by maestegmafia Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:58 am

HERSH wrote:So the WRU, IRFU, SRU and the Italians are going to go and moan to the IRB about how unfair it is that these guys had the foresight to secure a big payout for selling their product and securing its future for years to come.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Hardly.

The PRL have likely sold something they didnt have the right to sell. I think thats called fraud? RFU are currently investigating.

by Portnoy Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:00 am

Pot Hale wrote:Hmmm - as I speculated earlier. PRL in the shape of McCafferty may have crossed a line with his latest announcements.

From Times today:

"Has Mark McCafferty got a death wish? Has the chief executive of Premier Rugby (PRL) lost the plot entirely? It would seem so judging by his decision to adopt the nuclear option in his “negotiations” with ERC over the future of the Heineken Cup.

If the owners or chairmen of the 12 Aviva Premiership clubs do not put him out of his misery, he threatens to drag them on to the rocks. At a stroke, he has alienated the entire world of rugby and that takes some doing.

It is understood that a clear majority of the 12 clubs want rid of their chief executive, who joined from Avis, the car rental firm, on a salary in excess of £400,000.

However, it needs a unanimous verdict to consign McCafferty to rugby history and that collective will has been absent. More than once McCafferty has been granted a stay of execution. It is time to pull the trigger.

The unilateral announcement of the end of the Heineken Cup six days before all stakeholders in the tournament are due to meet in Dublin in an attempt to thrash out their differences is both astonishing and confusing.
First, he has sold the rights to a tournament that does not exist and one that PRL cannot own or control independently.

Second, his assertion that in 2007 the RFU signed over the TV rights to a competition in which PRL participated is only partly correct. It is in the case of league games, but incorrect in a European context. The Heineken Cup is a competition run and owned by unions.

Even had he been correct, the heads of agreement between the union and the clubs over all joint matters expires in 2015-16 and until another is in place, TV rights return to the union. It is not within McCafferty’s gift to sell rights to anything beyond that date, let alone to 2018, as he has with BT Vision.

Third, who are the English clubs going to play in this brave new world?
This stand-off is not about the route to qualification for the Heineken Cup alone, about which ERC has sympathy and concedes that change is necessary. It is about greed and governance.

But McCafferty would be wrong if he thinks France offers a definitive solution. In ERC matters, the French union (FFR) has five votes, four of which have been given to LNR, their clubs’ association. But in matters of “national interest” the FFR can reclaim those.

It is inconceivable that Pierre Camou, the FFR president, would not exercise that power of veto. He would not want to upset Bernard Lapasset, his compatriot who is chairman of the IRB and would have to sanction any new cross-border venture. Lapasset would surely not do that and destroy a tournament that has gripped the European imagination since 1995......."

This comment is printed by the Times - owned by NewsCorp who happen to own BSkyB. So I'm inclined to to read it with a pinch of salt - just as I did with the Irish 'Independent' coverage of the story yesterday.

Interestingly the Rugby Club made no reference whatsoever about the deal. In fact it was pretty much dominated y the Sarries v Tigers Wembley.

Life without Barnes would somehow make the potential loss of HEC rugby seem worthwhile for me.

by HERSH Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:01 am

maestegmafia wrote:
HERSH wrote:So the WRU, IRFU, SRU and the Italians are going to go and moan to the IRB about how unfair it is that these guys had the foresight to secure a big payout for selling their product and securing its future for years to come.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Hardly.

The PRL have likely sold something they didnt have the right to sell. I think thats called fraud? RFU are currently investigating.

I'm pretty sure that PRL would have made sure it's water tight before stirring up this Hornets nest.

I can see the Rabo spokesperson at the IRB committee meeting now.

Rabo spokes person:
"Please Sir can I have some more"

IRB:
“MORE!!!!”

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:07 am

Gibson wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:After reading numerous articles on this, I think that the PRL are about to cause everyone to spend a lot of money on lawyers for a very long time.

Well done them.

Maesteg, mo chara, Asbo was saying that earlier. The Law wins, whichever way it goes. Kaaaching! Spot on.

The Celts and the Italians, the ERC, the IRB and SKY - cannot afford to give up this fight.

I smell compromise on the Heineken Cup issue. No one cares that BT has got the Jeff. Except those with SKY Boxes an ting. I'm sure they will do an excellent job. I will always watch it. The Jeff is a great product. BT are a vast outfit, with a top-notch global communications machine. The BT Premiership will be a force to be reckoned with.

But, in the end, ye will have to tow the line on this particular issue, dahlinks.

Concessions will be made. 1 less team from the PRO12 to qualify? I dunno.

Ok. I do know. We give you Munster. Deal?

Gibson I think a compromise would be

8 Pro12 sides, 6 AP, 6 Top 14 in a 20 team HC competition

The 8 Pro12 sides would be top 2 Irish sides, top 2 Welsh sides, top Scottish side, top Italian side then the other two spots for the next best sides.

Bigger share of the pot for English and French clubs - exactly how much would need to be assessed.

This should satisfy the English and French financially, would make the Pro12 more competitive and make the HC have the best sides there by right.

It would keep an Italian and Scottish side guaranteed to be in the HC which means they wouldn't be completely left hung out of dry. The other Scottish and Italian side would have to qualify but could do this.

by **rodders** Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:09 am

Question folks...

If Rabo teams continue to win the HEC up until it finishes, will any new European competition not involving them have any real credibility? Will the winners of an anglo-french cup just be paper champions, if say the reigning European champions are a Rabo team, like for example .... Ulster... Whistle

by HERSH Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:10 am

The Rabo teams can't keep relying on handouts from the HC deal to survive in this cut throat world.

Maybe they should look to make the Rabo league a quality product so that TV companies fall over themselves trying to secure the rights to it.

by Mickado Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:14 am

beshocked wrote:
Gibson wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:After reading numerous articles on this, I think that the PRL are about to cause everyone to spend a lot of money on lawyers for a very long time.

Well done them.

Maesteg, mo chara, Asbo was saying that earlier. The Law wins, whichever way it goes. Kaaaching! Spot on.

The Celts and the Italians, the ERC, the IRB and SKY - cannot afford to give up this fight.

I smell compromise on the Heineken Cup issue. No one cares that BT has got the Jeff. Except those with SKY Boxes an ting. I'm sure they will do an excellent job. I will always watch it. The Jeff is a great product. BT are a vast outfit, with a top-notch global communications machine. The BT Premiership will be a force to be reckoned with.

But, in the end, ye will have to tow the line on this particular issue, dahlinks.

Concessions will be made. 1 less team from the PRO12 to qualify? I dunno.

Ok. I do know. We give you Munster. Deal?

Gibson I think a compromise would be

8 Pro12 sides, 6 AP, 6 Top 14 in a 20 team HC competition

The 8 Pro12 sides would be top 2 Irish sides, top 2 Welsh sides, top Scottish side, top Italian side then the other two spots for the next best sides.

Bigger share of the pot for English and French clubs - exactly how much would need to be assessed.

This should satisfy the English and French financially, would make the Pro12 more competitive and make the HC have the best sides there by right.

It would keep an Italian and Scottish side guaranteed to be in the HC which means they wouldn't be completely left hung out of dry. The other Scottish and Italian side would have to qualify but could do this.

On what basis would Wales get the same amout of teams as Ireland?

by Toadfish Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:24 am

Have to say I am prettty neutral as to the outcome of all this as no matter what happens there will be rugby for me to watch and I'll be happy. My interest is in the game being played and to be honest it's pretty fascinating.

There seems to be quite a lot of calls of foul play from the Rabo nations. Can I ask what you actually want from all this? While some of the timing, statements and fine details might be slightly questionable from the PRL the principle of what they are doing doesn't seem wrong. They gave notice to the ERC at the correct time meaning they have no obligations post the end of the current agreement. They then negotiated their own deal securing their financial future.

It seems that seems that some feel that even though the PRL aren't happy with the HC (And haven't been for a long time) that they should just suck it up and carry on as it works for the Rabo nations? Care to justify why they should?

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:28 am

Mickado they have 4 teams like you. With the system I suggest all 3 of the top Irish sides would qualify for the HC anyway. Might even give Connacht a puncher's chance of qualifying from their own efforts.

E.g. you could potentially see 4 Irish sides, 2 Welsh sides, 1 Italian,1 Scottish.

It would stop Connacht hanging onto the coat tails of the superior Irish clubs. The likes of Zebre and Edinburgh would have to perform better in the Pro12 to keep their place.

by **rodders** Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:34 am

I don't think there has been any foul play. The PRL have done whats best for them and are well within their rights to do so.

As a rugby fan I'm disappointed because I think the HEC is a fantastic tournament and produces some of the best rugby around, but money talks and its the AP that pays the bills for the AP teams.

It's disappointing what has happened but life goes on.

by maestegmafia Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:36 am

Toadfish wrote:Can I ask what you actually want from all this?

Yes that is the paramount question and I think the answer is the same for all the rugby fans this effects.

We want to see a brilliant European rugby competition.

by Toadfish Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:39 am

maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:Can I ask what you actually want from all this?

Yes that is the paramount question and I think the answer is the same for all the rugby fans this effects.

We want to see a brilliant European rugby competition.

Ok then so further to this what are you prepared to give for it?

by HERSH Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:40 am

maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:Can I ask what you actually want from all this?

Yes that is the paramount question and I think the answer is the same for all the rugby fans this effects.

We want to see a brilliant European rugby competition, played on a level playing field

same here.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:41 am

HERSH wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
HERSH wrote:So the WRU, IRFU, SRU and the Italians are going to go and moan to the IRB about how unfair it is that these guys had the foresight to secure a big payout for selling their product and securing its future for years to come.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Hardly.

The PRL have likely sold something they didnt have the right to sell. I think thats called fraud? RFU are currently investigating.

I'm pretty sure that PRL would have made sure it's water tight before stirring up this Hornets nest.

Oh yes, just like they did with their MSC and promotion/relegation - that'll be right Rolling Eyes

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:42 am

beshocked wrote:
Gibson wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:After reading numerous articles on this, I think that the PRL are about to cause everyone to spend a lot of money on lawyers for a very long time.

Well done them.

Maesteg, mo chara, Asbo was saying that earlier. The Law wins, whichever way it goes. Kaaaching! Spot on.

The Celts and the Italians, the ERC, the IRB and SKY - cannot afford to give up this fight.

I smell compromise on the Heineken Cup issue. No one cares that BT has got the Jeff. Except those with SKY Boxes an ting. I'm sure they will do an excellent job. I will always watch it. The Jeff is a great product. BT are a vast outfit, with a top-notch global communications machine. The BT Premiership will be a force to be reckoned with.

But, in the end, ye will have to tow the line on this particular issue, dahlinks.

Concessions will be made. 1 less team from the PRO12 to qualify? I dunno.

Ok. I do know. We give you Munster. Deal?

Gibson I think a compromise would be

8 Pro12 sides, 6 AP, 6 Top 14 in a 20 team HC competition

The 8 Pro12 sides would be top 2 Irish sides, top 2 Welsh sides, top Scottish side, top Italian side then the other two spots for the next best sides.

Bigger share of the pot for English and French clubs - exactly how much would need to be assessed.

This should satisfy the English and French financially, would make the Pro12 more competitive and make the HC have the best sides there by right.

It would keep an Italian and Scottish side guaranteed to be in the HC which means they wouldn't be completely left hung out of dry. The other Scottish and Italian side would have to qualify but could do this.

beshocked, as a Celt (well more Pict) and an AP team supporter, I would be more than happy with that deal

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:45 am

From today's Torygraph:

Row brews over Premier Rugby's £152m TV rights deal with BT Vision

By Mick Cleary and Gavin Mairs

The Rugby Football Union has launched an investigation to establish whether Premier Rugby’s controversial £152 million broadcasting rights deal with BT Vision is legally binding. And the backlash against the deal was spreading last night, with Patrick Wolff, the vice-president of the French League, calling its timing “inappropriate” and Cardiff Blues chairman Peter Thomas accusing English clubs of leaving their fellow European clubs “in the lurch”.

ERC, the governing body of the Heineken Cup, claimed Premier Rugby had breached International Rugby Board regulations in selling broadcasting rights for games involving English clubs for three seasons from 2014 without the consent of the RFU. Premier Rugby, the umbrella organisation for England’s top clubs, denied this allegation, claiming that it had specific consent to control the broadcasting right of its clubs following the agreement with the RFU in 2007.

That agreement expires in 2015, however, and in the absence of a new agreement, broadcasting rights would revert to the RFU, which raises questions about whether Premier Rugby was permitted to sell rights beyond that date.

ERC responded to the BT Vision deal on Wednesday by announcing a new four-year broadcasting arrangement with Sky for its European competitions.

“We are exploring the legalities around the relevant section of the agreement between PRL and the RFU in 2007,” said an RFU spokesman. “We will continue to talk with all parties on what is a complex and fast-moving set of issues, in a confidential manner.”

While several clubs’ supporters forums contained negative comments about the new deal, the clubs themselves yesterday remained united behind it despite the escalating row with ERC. It is understood all 12 clubs voted unanimously for the new deal. Saracens chairman Nigel Wray called for the structure of the Heineken Cup to reflect the financial muscle of the French and English clubs.

“The Heineken Cup was set up by the Unions and fair play that they created it,” Wray said. “The English and French clubs contribute by miles the biggest part of the revenue and we don’t get our just reward. That must be put right.

“The structure is clearly wrong in that we have to knock each other out to get into the tournament and all the other guys stroll in. And that’s not right – we have to fight to get in and we provide most of the revenue. The terms have to be changed.”

Traditionalists would have been staggered to hear BT Vision chief executive Marc Watson speak yesterday of “owning” a new tournament.

“We are looking to set up a dazzling new European tournament with a fantastic new format with, we hope, all the best clubs,” said Watson. “That tournament will be the successor to the Heineken Cup.”

It was thought that an Anglo-French alliance would be a unified element in the negotiations. Although there is total agreement between the two countries as to the need for a revamp, Wolff revealed to The Daily Telegraph that there were concerns as to the means of bringing this about.

“It is inappropriate to give news about TV rights in Europe,” said Wolff, vice-president of the Ligue Nationale de Rugby and one of two French representatives at next Tuesday’s all-important ERC board meeting in Dublin. “I was disappointed. It is not appropriate that this is to be put on the agenda. We do not know for sure if ERC or the clubs or another organisation owns these rights.

“Of course I understand that this is the usual pressure exerted before negotiations but I was sorry to see financial issues being discussed before we talk about how the competition needs to be improved. We don’t want to start all this by having lawyers there arguing about TV rights. We must talk first about the sport.”

Premier Rugby’s decision to announce a pre-emptive deal is a show of power, a leverage point in negotiations to come. However, it was always felt that Premier Rugby’s trump card was that it could march off side-by-side with the French clubs if they did not get their way. Wolff revealed that any putative Anglo-French competition to take the place of a Heineken Cup is a last resort.

“This is not the story at the moment, this Anglo-French competition, only if there is a complete failure of negotiations,” said Wolff.

He believes that the Celts will come to the table on Tuesday willing to negotiate, although Thomas was still smarting last night.

“Premier Rugby haven’t got the Welsh, the Irish, the Scottish or the Italians and they haven’t got the French at the moment,” he said. “They have only got the English teams in it. They are making massive assumptions.”

It's all about the moulah

by Artful_Dodger Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:48 am

I can see this blowing up in PRL's face given what I've read from the Times and Telegraph in the last couple of days.

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:49 am

Thanks Aslongasbut100ofus. It would also help the Amlin Challenge Cup because it would make it less Anglo-French central.

It would certainly help the likes of Zebre and Connacht to play in a competition that they have more of a chance in.

by BoyneRFC Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:56 am

beshocked wrote:Thanks Aslongasbut100ofus. It would also help the Amlin Challenge Cup because it would make it less Anglo-French central.

It would certainly help the likes of Zebre and Connacht to play in a competition that they have more of a chance in.

Jesus, what is your problem with Connacht? They did beat the AP Champions (ha) you know !! Laugh

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:57 am

From the Grauniad:

Premiership Rugby television deal threatens schism over Europe

by Paul Rees and Robert Kitson

Premiership Rugby and the unions which organise the Heineken Cup may end up in court as the battle for control of European rugby's leading club competition intensifies in the biggest schism in six nations rugby for 14 years.

A TV deal with BT Vision announced by Premiership Rugby this week, which included rights to European competition, provoked a war of words with European Rugby Cup Ltd, the organisers of the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cups, with each side accusing the other of selling the rights to a tournament that did not exist.

Premiership Rugby's TV deal and desire to change the format of the Heineken Cup are the ostensible reasons for the dispute. ERC maintains that International Rugby Board regulations do not allow clubs to negotiate television or sponsorship contracts unless their union gives them permission, and then it only applies to competitions played within their own borders. It was taking legal advice.

The English clubs, who boycotted Europe in 1998 in a dispute over who controlled the professional game, insist under the terms of an agreement with the Rugby Football Union five years ago they have the right to do their own TV deals. That deal ends in 2016, two years before the contract with BT Vision concludes, something that could be rendered invalid if the RFU took back the negotiation rights.

ERC has agreed an enhanced TV deal with Sky for the Heineken Cup to run to 2018, something Premiership Rugby which, with the leading French clubs, last June served a two-year notice for pulling out of the European tournaments, says is invalid because, with a new participation agreement to replace the one that ends in 2014 not agreed, there is nothing to sell. "What this is about is club competitions being run by clubs rather than the unions," said a Premiership source. "The Champions League is not run by the Football Association or the German federation and imagine how stupid it would be if it were. It is in everyone's interests to play together with a more even distribution of money than is currently the case.It comes down to who blinks first."

The English and French clubs say the only way to get meaningful change is to make a lot of noise, and by securing money for a European competition from BT Vision, whose chief executive Marc Watson predicted a new European competition with a "fantastic new format‚" would replace the Heineken Cup, they have the financial means to divide the other four countries that make up the ERC board, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Italy.

ERC's stance is that Premiership Rugby is bound by corporate governance to the new Sky deal because it was part of a meeting on 6 June, as one of England's two representatives, that mandated the executive to conclude the agreement. The English clubs response is that three weeks later, on 27 June, they wrote to ERC, copying in Sky, saying the contract was invalid.

"The Heineken Cup is a tremendous tournament but the terms have to be tweaked," said the Saracens chairman, Nigel Wray. "English and French clubs have to knock each other out to get into the tournament and all the other guys stroll in. That's not right given that we provide most of the revenue. The Heineken Cup was set up by the unions and fair play to them, but the clubs in England and France must get their reward."

The ERC board meets on Tuesday in Dublinnext week to discuss a new participation agreement. England's two directors are Leicester's Peter Wheeler and the RFU's Rob Andrew. Other unions are looking to Twickenham to exert their authority over the clubs and emphasise that TV rights for cross-border regulations are not for clubs to sell under the IRB's regulation 13. The IRB can only become involved if a union makes a complaint.

The RFU's chief executive, Ian Ritchie, and the Premiership Rugby chief executive, Mark McCafferty, attended a meeting of the professional game board at Twickenhamon Thursday . Entry criteria for the Premiership was meant to be the main subject on the agenda, but the conflict in Europe dominated debate. The RFU did not give away its stance. "We are exploring the legalities around the relevant section of the agreement between PRL [Premiership Rugby] and the RFU in 2007," said a Union spokesperson. "We will continue to talk with all parties on what is a complex and fast moving set of issues, in a confidential manner. We will consider and reflect upon the situation before commenting further."

by maestegmafia Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:04 am

Toadfish wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:Can I ask what you actually want from all this?

Yes that is the paramount question and I think the answer is the same for all the rugby fans this effects.

We want to see a brilliant European rugby competition.

Ok then so further to this what are you prepared to give for it?

From a welsh perspective we have three allocations so we have to qualify for europe. The issue is not consession as I don't think any RP12 fans would shun anything that made our league tougher or the rugby better, we all see the gains in that. The economic implications on Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy should they be effected might be a necessary downside to improving the tournament but as long as their is time, opportunity and planning in advance, measures can be implemented to deal with this financial constraint to those effected for the good of the game.

You also may have read the myriad of threads on the subject of renegotiation of the HEC and noticed that many of us support tougher qualification, we also support a meeting as arranged previously by Mon. Wolff to discuss this at the ERC table.

What I, and I am sure many many others, object to is the PRL selling out the competition to a company that want to "own rugby", start their own competitions and have agreed a massive deal without the negotiation of the other parties involved. Especially when they had previously said they wanted to discuss at the table like the French.

The PRL seem to be assuming control of English rugby, they have done so persistently under McCafferty's tenure, their assumptions effect us all and it is most worrying to see that of an organisation that appears to be untrustworthy with the direction of the future of the sport. They represent owners and accountants and not the RFU or the interests of the game in England or Europe.

It constantly surprises me how un-suspicious Englishmen on this site are of the PRL and it's impact.

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:05 am

BoyneRFC wrote:
beshocked wrote:Thanks Aslongasbut100ofus. It would also help the Amlin Challenge Cup because it would make it less Anglo-French central.

It would certainly help the likes of Zebre and Connacht to play in a competition that they have more of a chance in.

Jesus, what is your problem with Connacht? They did beat the AP Champions (ha) you know !!

They also won only 1 match in the HC. They are a small club that is perfectly suited for the Amlin Challenge Cup. It annoys me because I see a club like Exeter who keep on rising, they fought tooth and nail for their HC place. Whilst other clubs get HC rugby handed to them on a platter.

Connacht also have lost to Quins 3 times recently.

Connacht and Zebre's presence in the HC brings down the quality of their pool and makes it the most desirable to be in. Having the weakest and 2nd weakest club in the HC in the same pool completely imbalances things. Neither of these sides have earnt qualification.

by maestegmafia Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:06 am

BoyneRFC wrote:
beshocked wrote:Thanks Aslongasbut100ofus. It would also help the Amlin Challenge Cup because it would make it less Anglo-French central.

It would certainly help the likes of Zebre and Connacht to play in a competition that they have more of a chance in.

Jesus, what is your problem with Connacht? They did beat the AP Champions (ha) you know !!

He keeps forgetting Connacht beat the AP winners at home and very nearly beat them at the stoop too.

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:07 am

maestegmafia wrote:
BoyneRFC wrote:
beshocked wrote:Thanks Aslongasbut100ofus. It would also help the Amlin Challenge Cup because it would make it less Anglo-French central.

It would certainly help the likes of Zebre and Connacht to play in a competition that they have more of a chance in.

Jesus, what is your problem with Connacht? They did beat the AP Champions (ha) you know !!

He keeps forgetting Connacht beat the AP winners at home and very nearly beat them at the stoop too.

Yup I also keep forgetting that Quins did the double over Connacht in the Amlin and dumped them out in the pool stages too not too long ago.

by maestegmafia Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:20 am

beshocked wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
BoyneRFC wrote:
beshocked wrote:Thanks Aslongasbut100ofus. It would also help the Amlin Challenge Cup because it would make it less Anglo-French central.

It would certainly help the likes of Zebre and Connacht to play in a competition that they have more of a chance in.

Jesus, what is your problem with Connacht? They did beat the AP Champions (ha) you know !!

He keeps forgetting Connacht beat the AP winners at home and very nearly beat them at the stoop too.

Yup I also keep forgetting that Quins did the double over Connacht in the Amlin and dumped them out in the pool stages too not too long ago.

As you saw more recently Connacht are an ever improving entity that now can compete with teams that win the AP.

This is a big part of the reason guys like Cardiff Blues Chairman Peter Thomas are so angry. Clubs are organised to cope with what they can plan for. If one party dramatically changes those plans and the other parties are directly effected it becomes very costly for those affected and in this case very profitable for those in affected.

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:31 am

maestegmafia wrote:
beshocked wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
BoyneRFC wrote:
beshocked wrote:Thanks Aslongasbut100ofus. It would also help the Amlin Challenge Cup because it would make it less Anglo-French central.

It would certainly help the likes of Zebre and Connacht to play in a competition that they have more of a chance in.

Jesus, what is your problem with Connacht? They did beat the AP Champions (ha) you know !!

He keeps forgetting Connacht beat the AP winners at home and very nearly beat them at the stoop too.

Yup I also keep forgetting that Quins did the double over Connacht in the Amlin and dumped them out in the pool stages too not too long ago.

As you saw more recently Connacht are an ever improving entity that now can compete with teams that win the AP.

This is a big part of the reason guys like Cardiff Blues Chairman Peter Thomas are so angry. Clubs are organised to cope with what they can plan for. If one party dramatically changes those plans and the other parties are directly effected it becomes very costly for those affected and in this case very profitable for those in affected.

Funny. A Welshman hanging onto the coat tails of Connacht. Laugh

You forgot that Connacht lost to 9th placed Gloucester x2, Toulouse x2 and actually Quins too.

When you are right at the bottom of the pile, the only way is up surely. Laugh

Cardiff don't have much to complain about. They've been getting a good deal from the ERC for some time.

by Welshmushroom Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:31 am

DaveM wrote:I'd expect the French clubs to go for the most profitable option. The choices are the Sky deal and playing the Rabo sides, or selling their own TV rights, and playing the English and anyone else who can be convinced to join the new competition.

Erm there is also option C for the French:

Increase the top 14 teams to 16 and actually not take part in a European competition at all. For them this is actually the most profitable as they make more money per game in the top 14 than anywhere else. If cash is what they are really after this will be the one they choose. Infact there has been no mentioned from the French they are even considering a cross border competition with the English.

by Toadfish Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:34 am

maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:Can I ask what you actually want from all this?

Yes that is the paramount question and I think the answer is the same for all the rugby fans this effects.

We want to see a brilliant European rugby competition.

Ok then so further to this what are you prepared to give for it?

From a welsh perspective we have three allocations so we have to qualify for europe. The issue is not consession as I don't think any RP12 fans would shun anything that made our league tougher or the rugby better, we all see the gains in that. The economic implications on Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy should they be effected might be a necessary downside to improving the tournament but as long as their is time, opportunity and planning in advance, measures can be implemented to deal with this financial constraint to those effected for the good of the game.

You also may have read the myriad of threads on the subject of renegotiation of the HEC and noticed that many of us support tougher qualification, we also support a meeting as arranged previously by Mon. Wolff to discuss this at the ERC table.

What I, and I am sure many many others, object to is the PRL selling out the competition to a company that want to "own rugby", start their own competitions and have agreed a massive deal without the negotiation of the other parties involved. Especially when they had previously said they wanted to discuss at the table like the French.

The PRL seem to be assuming control of English rugby, they have done so persistently under McCafferty's tenure, their assumptions effect us all and it is most worrying to see that of an organisation that appears to be untrustworthy with the direction of the future of the sport. They represent owners and accountants and not the RFU or the interests of the game in England or Europe.

It constantly surprises me how un-suspicious Englishmen on this site are of the PRL and it's impact.

Thanks for the input and it's interesting to read. I am no fan at all of BT but to me the issue here lies with them not the PRL. Seems to me that they let someone talk to the press who was a little too high on the success of the deal. The PRL seem to have maintained their stance that they would like the HC to work and this deal just brings more to the pot. In terms of 'selling out the competition' I just can't see what they have done wrong. They have negotiated the rights to broadcast their appearances in any European competition for a period in which we currently have no deal to appear in a European competition. This just means that this part of the contract will have to form a part of any new European deal made by the PRL. Two ways of looking at this I think. Either it's incredibly limiting to the PRL's chances of securing a new deal as this might be a major hurdle for a group to overcome. Or it's a really strong hand to take to the table saying we have secured x amount to put in the pot.

I think passions are running high here and everyone is looking for someone to blame here. From my perhaps slightly bias perspective the English and French have made it clear they were unhappy back as far as 2007 and not to such an extent that they have followed correct protocol and given notice to the ERC. They have a deal that secures their future regardless of the existence of an HC. It seems to me that if the HC is to continue it's up to the Rabo nations to do something to bring them back to the table? I’m not sure if it’s been based on conjecture or actual reports but my understanding has been the Rabo nations have refused to negotiate on any points.

On another point I've seen a number of comments about how dare the PRL negotiate a deal for European games like this and how it displays more English arrogance. Well how about the ERC agreeing a deal with SKY for a period when they didn't even have the agreement for 2 nations to participate?

by Brendan Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:36 am

The three problems i see is

1. All members of the ERC voted for the ERC to sell rights to 2018 thus giving ERC the rights to do it. The PRL haven't said the ERC are wrong which implies they are not. Also it seems like the PRL want to stay under the ERC (talking about HC) so gave away any right they have to sell them.

2. Each union owns the right to show the competion not just to show their teams. As a result the PRL can only sell the rights for showing the ERC competitions in England. It just so happens that the RFU, IRFU, SRU and WRU sell the uk rights together. All Unions can show the knock out games its not like once you teams are out the country can't show any more of the competition.

3. The PRL don't have the rights to sell anything beyond 2015/2016 as the RFU haven't given them permission unlike the ERC member gave to the ERC

4. The french would love nothing more then to hang the english out to dry and the French Union will not give in to their clubs.

No one has come back about the Rabos playing more Internationals would that make them the more money lost from the HC.

by Cumbrian Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:37 am

Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in. They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

by Mickado Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:39 am

Cumbrian wrote:Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

Presumably someone brought them up in the context of not being deserving of a HC place ahead of some AP teams.

by Welshmushroom Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:41 am

DaveM wrote:I'm not sure why the RFU would care that much to be honest. So long as the clubs are playing plenty of English players and England have access to them then what is there for them to die in a ditch for exactly?

For starters 4 out of the 6 Unions upset at this are infact major key holders for the 6 Nations. It would never happen but the RFU could be removed from that competition (the world single most lucrative tournament) as a result. They will hardly be willing to jump to the defence of the PRL who clearly didnt even bother to inform them about current proceedings. I just dont see the RFU trying to make enemies of the homes unions.

RFU statement recently is they are looking into the legalities of the PRL aggrement. They are actually investigating the legality of the PRLs actions. If the PRL have over stepped the mark I cant see how the RFU wont come down on them like a ton of bricks.

by Cumbrian Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:43 am

Mickado wrote:
Cumbrian wrote:Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

Presumably someone brought them up in the context of not being deserving of a HC place ahead of some AP teams.

But what does one game prove either way?

by Brendan Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:44 am

I think every problem with the HC is we mix up derseving to be in the HC and being able to compete and win it. There are really only about 12 teams 50% who stand a chance of making the quarters. As good as Scarlets and Exeter are they could finish with a win each with the other two teams getting 5 points and 25 pts.

by doctor_grey Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:49 am

To go on a short tangent for a moment: Does anyone think this could be another of the inevitable growing pains of professionalism? Rugby has been officially pro for still less than twenty years. It takes a long for for everything to develop.

Here is Rugby. In the world of pro sports, a real baby. Comparing to the salaries, media attention and cliub/team stadia, way behind soccer, the Olympics, and any of the 4 big American sports, Rugby is far, far behind. Maybe this is one of those disfunctional lurches on the growth path? No sport, none, grew quietly and serenely from the grass roots to global standing. And many of the big sports still have disagreements.

by geoff998rugby Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:50 am

Would Connacht beenfit from playing in the Amlin - of course they would but then again so would the likes of Bath, Gloucester, London Irish, Sale, Exeter etc etc - basically most of the underachieving teams in the Aviva.

Lets be honest only Leicester, Saracens, Saints have delivered anything of substance in the HC in recents years - the rest have struggled

by Knackeredknees Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:50 am

Mickado wrote:
Cumbrian wrote:Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

Presumably someone brought them up in the context of not being deserving of a HC place ahead of some AP teams.

I think it's not a case of ahead of an AP side, or a given automatic entry no matter how bad you suck! Zebre were also mention at the time but some posters forget that fact to have a pop. Ie zebra have qualified before ever playing a gamr of rugby yet have automatic qualification to the elite competition in Europe Headscratch

by Toadfish Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:51 am

Brendan wrote:The three problems i see is

1. All members of the ERC voted for the ERC to sell rights to 2018 thus giving ERC the rights to do it. The PRL haven't said the ERC are wrong which implies they are not. Also it seems like the PRL want to stay under the ERC (talking about HC) so gave away any right they have to sell them.

2. Each union owns the right to show the competion not just to show their teams. As a result the PRL can only sell the rights for showing the ERC competitions in England. It just so happens that the RFU, IRFU, SRU and WRU sell the uk rights together. All Unions can show the knock out games its not like once you teams are out the country can't show any more of the competition.

3. The PRL don't have the rights to sell anything beyond 2015/2016 as the RFU haven't given them permission unlike the ERC member gave to the ERC

4. The french would love nothing more then to hang the english out to dry and the French Union will not give in to their clubs.

No one has come back about the Rabos playing more Internationals would that make them the more money lost from the HC.

Ok on point 1 surely the moment that notice was handed in this became a moot point. How can they agree to sell the rights to a competition they won't be participating in? Apparently PRL copied in SKY when they gave their notice to make this clear.

On point 3 this is being checked and will come down to a wording thing as to did they have the rights to sell an agreement up until that point in time or did they have an agreement to sell rights up until that point in time. The worse thing that will happen (in my opinion) would be a light rap on the nuckles for the PRL and a ratification of the agreement from the RFU as it is in the RFU's interests to keep the PRL happy.

Point 4 might be true but there is nothing to indicate this and seems to just be wishful thinking from some. Even if the AP ends up with no European competition on the face of it they look ok financialy and it might even benefit the players and England for their to be less fixtures.

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:52 am

Brendan both those sides have earnt qualification by merit. Both came 5th in their respective tables.Exeter did quite well in the Amlin. Scarlets were runners up in their HC pool. No one can really begrudge their inclusion.

If sides show they are of sufficient quality to be in the HC then of course they deserve to be there. E.g. London Irish and Bath were poor last season. Consequently no HC for them.

Is earning a HC place by merit such a strange concept?

by Mickado Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:53 am

Cumbrian wrote:
Mickado wrote:
Cumbrian wrote:Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

Presumably someone brought them up in the context of not being deserving of a HC place ahead of some AP teams.

But what does one game prove either way?

One game that changed the entire complexion of the knockout stages of the tournament. Had Connacht lost the game Quins would have got a home QF and Toulouse would have been out. The point is that some posters here are saying that Connacht have no right to be a part of the HC, and yet in thier first and only year they had a material affect on the shape of the tournament.

So what if they only won one game, in the 2010/2011 season Racing Metro qualified for the tournament for the first time by dint of Toulouse winning it the previous year (as Connacht did last year), they had pretty much no impact on the tournament as a whole, but if the same set of circumstances occured and they found themselves back in the cup, nobody would complain. Why is that? For the record, in the same group Saracens only won one game, maybe they should be banned from the competition?

by **rodders** Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:55 am

Cumbrian wrote:Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in. They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

Are you for real???

That was quite pleasant weather for Galway.....

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:55 am

geoff998rugby wrote:Would Connacht beenfit from playing in the Amlin - of course they would but then again so would the likes of Bath, Gloucester, London Irish, Sale, Exeter etc etc - basically most of the underachieving teams in the Aviva.

Lets be honest only Leicester, Saracens, Saints have delivered anything of substance in the HC in recents years - the rest have struggled

Little harsh to include Exeter. They are a relatively new side still trying to find their feet. Also Quins won the ACC not long ago.

I agree that Bath,London Irish and Gloucester have flattered to deceive but they are not in the HC this season. Quite understandably.

by SecretFly Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:55 am

The Italians are the most toe-tappingnest, humdinginest, Riverdancingest, begorrah-and-begoshest, be-the-hokiest Celts on the planet - Fact!

That's just an observation that has come to me whilst reading through the posts.

Now for the serious stuff. Let me see how this thing is going down so far (a generalisation of course for expediency):

The English PRL want to rule the world.

The RFU didn't, or are pretending not to, know what the hell is going on.

The French are planning to burn a few truckloads of sheep in protest, but they're not sure what for yet

The Welsh wouldn't mind a tougher Pro12 (sacrificing automatic Scottish and Italian interests for the good of the league).

The Scots are keeping a dignified silence - for now

The Italians know what they want to say but they can't make it sound good in English - they're still with their interpreters.

The Irish want no change, want Scottish and Italians to remain part of the deal by right and they DEMAND that ERC negotiations include the provision for seven more straight Irish HC wins or they pull out... Wink

by HERSH Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:00 am

geoff998rugby wrote:Would Connacht beenfit from playing in the Amlin - of course they would but then again so would the likes of Bath, Gloucester, London Irish, Sale, Exeter etc etc - basically most of the underachieving teams in the Aviva.

Lets be honest only Leicester, Saracens, Saints have delivered anything of substance in the HC in recents years - the rest have struggled

Why have they struggled?

Because they aren't guaranteed automatic qualification for the following seasons HC, so the Jeff comes first.

All they asked for was a level playing field.

top 6 from the Jeff, Rabo and Top14 with the winning league of the HC getting an extra spot plus the winners of the Amlin.

What’s unfair about that?

by beshocked Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:02 am

Mickado wrote:
Cumbrian wrote:
Mickado wrote:
Cumbrian wrote:Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

Presumably someone brought them up in the context of not being deserving of a HC place ahead of some AP teams.

But what does one game prove either way?

One game that changed the entire complexion of the knockout stages of the tournament. Had Connacht lost the game Quins would have got a home QF and Toulouse would have been out. The point is that some posters here are saying that Connacht have no right to be a part of the HC, and yet in thier first and only year they had a material affect on the shape of the tournament.

So what if they only won one game, in the 2010/2011 season Racing Metro qualified for the tournament for the first time by dint of Toulouse winning it the previous year (as Connacht did last year), they had pretty much no impact on the tournament as a whole, but if the same set of circumstances occured and they found themselves back in the cup, nobody would complain. Why is that? For the record, in the same group Saracens only won one game, maybe they should be banned from the competition?

Mickado are you honestly going to compare Saracens to Connacht? Saracens came into that pool stage as 2009-10 AP finalists, that season they became 2010-11 AP champions. They had the two strongest sides in Europe in their pool - Leinster and Clermont, the 4th seed was Racing Metro who I think became Top 14 semi finalists that year.

That was quite possibly the toughest HC pool you could get. In 2011-12 the season after - Saracens got to the quarter finals, Clermont to the semis and Leinster won the tournament. Kind of puts things into perspective.

A pool of Leinster,Clermont,Saracens and Racing Metro is stronger than Toulouse,Quins,Connacht,Gloucester or do you not think so?

by Sponsored content