BT buy Premiership rights from next season

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

maestegmafia wrote:

allyt2k wrote:someone has there wires crossed and have made a complete mess

Quote from Mark McCafferty, chief executive of Premiership Rugby

"I want to emphasise that our objective is to remain in the Heineken Cup," he said. "The television deal we have agreed with BT will increase the size of the pot for everyone in Europe. Scotland and Italy will benefit: what we want is to increase the size of the cake rather than argue about slices.

Quote from Marc Watson chief executive of BT

"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.

are the PRL and BT even talking to each other? doesn't sound that way

That just about sums it up.... PRL have sold something they don't have the rights to, to a company who believe they now own rugby in England.

Marc Watson said: 'We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively".

That is a chilling statement. Hopefully spoken in ignorance.

allyt2k wrote:The more i look at the previous pro 12/magners/celtic league the more i like the idea of 3 leagues within 1 for qualification for european rugby.

top 2 go into heinie bottom 2 go into amlin

2010-2011 season

IRISH
MUNSTER 83
LEINSTER 70
ULSTER 67
CONNACHT 39

Ulster would have been only 1 win from knocking out leinster to the amlin cup, would make any team think twice before resting players.

WELSH
OSPREYS 63
SCARLETS 62
CARDIFF 60
DRAGONS 46

1 win between 3 teams, again would make any team think twice before resting players.

think it would be bad for just the pro12 top 6, if the scots and italians have a season like 2010-2011 they would have no representation at all in the top tier so why don't they do a small group aswell.

SCOT/ITALIAN
EDINBURGH 43
BENETTON 38
GLASGOW 33
AIRONI 12

not much between glasgow and benetton so would make them fight a bit harder, and you still end up with a scottish and italian side in the top tier which they would have to fight for.
By 2011-2012 results glasgow and benetton would take the top spots with edinburgh along with aironi moving into the amlin but it would be even more of a fight with edinburgh only 1 win behind benetton to have 2 scottish clubs in the heinie and kick the italians down to the amlin.

So you think that Ulster the 2011/2012 finalists, shouldn't have qualified?

Personally I think the Irish teams are well deserving of having 3 automatic entries, as the 3 teams have performed very well in th eH-cup over the last couple of years.

So you say Irealnd only gets 2 automatic entries and England still keeps 6? I think if number of entries were based on a co-effieient based on performace, the Irish would be entitled to 6 entries as well.

Kingshu wrote:


Personally I think the Irish teams are well deserving of having 3 automatic entries, as the 3 teams have performed very well in th eH-cup over the last couple of years..

They have performed well in the Pro 12 too.

I think the line from Wray and others about having to fight tooth and claw for European spots is flawed anyway.

The Premiership gives its places by league placing and cup winner. The first four teams were chasing the playoff spots anyway - same as the Pro 12 do. The French are all chasing 6 playoff spots which give the Euro places as well. It's the same amount of effort involved to gain both things.

The winner of the AW Cup gets one spot - which is a different comp. So it's only the 5th spot in the Premiership that's any different.

Saracen's Chairman, Nigel Wray:

“The Heineken Cup was set up by the Unions and fair play [but their time is up, we're taking over] 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 [we don't win]. That must be put right [we must win].

“The structure is clearly wrong in that we have to knock each other out [play against each other like them lot in Pro12 have to] to get into the tournament and all the other guys stroll in [Leinster came in last in the Pro12 last year and still strolled into HC]. And that’s not right[winning is right and therefore we must win] – we have to fight to get in [six guaranteed places waiting for us after the fight] and we provide most of the revenue [our audience does]. The terms have to be changed [All people remain in your homes, we are the new government, you will not be harmed. Our military is here to help you. Please cooperate with them at all times. Curfew will be strictly enforced.]

Gibson wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

allyt2k wrote:someone has there wires crossed and have made a complete mess

Quote from Mark McCafferty, chief executive of Premiership Rugby

"I want to emphasise that our objective is to remain in the Heineken Cup," he said. "The television deal we have agreed with BT will increase the size of the pot for everyone in Europe. Scotland and Italy will benefit: what we want is to increase the size of the cake rather than argue about slices.

Quote from Marc Watson chief executive of BT

"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.

are the PRL and BT even talking to each other? doesn't sound that way

That just about sums it up.... PRL have sold something they don't have the rights to, to a company who believe they now own rugby in England.

Marc Watson said: 'We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively".

That is a chilling statement. Hopefully spoken in ignorance.

I agree Gibbo, Hopefully he meant "We saw in rugby an opportunity to own [broadcasting rights to] a sport exclusively"

It would be very bad if a single organisation took overall territorial ownership of a sport. Oh. Wait. Hang on. I mean...

SecretFly wrote:Saracen's Chairman, Nigel Wray:

“The Heineken Cup was set up by the Unions and fair play [but their time is up, we're taking over] 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 [we don't win]. That must be put right [we must win].

“The structure is clearly wrong in that we have to knock each other out [play against each other like them lot in Pro12 have to] to get into the tournament and all the other guys stroll in [Leinster came in last in the Pro12 last year and still strolled into HC]. And that’s not right[winning is right and therefore we must win] – we have to fight to get in [six guaranteed places waiting for us after the fight] and we provide most of the revenue [our audience does]. The terms have to be changed [All people remain in your homes, we are the new government, you will not be harmed. Our military is here to help you. Please cooperate with them at all times. Curfew will be strictly enforced.]

Very good...

Portnoy wrote:

I agree Gibbo, Hopefully he meant "We saw in rugby an opportunity to own [broadcasting rights to] a sport exclusively"

It would be very bad if a single organisation took overall territorial ownership of a sport. Oh. Wait. Hang on. I mean...

Leave it to Portnoy, just when you think he's agreeing with you, he's already shot another cannon into your stern. Never drop your guard on this marksman.

BTW, it wouldn't be very bad at all if a single organisation took overall territorial ownership of a sport - afterall, that's what PRL head is trying to do...so I think the RFU could make a fist of it, longer experience on the CV than BT and all that and sure aren't their hobbies/activities even in the right area. "What do you like to do at the weekends, RFU?" "Em,well, I like a bit of organising rugby, been doing it most of my life".

Badly? Who said that??

Islingtonv2 wrote:The fact is i've read pretty much every single piece of literature written on this story since it broke and i still have no idea how the English or ERC are going to play it, let alone the French who have kept their cards very close to their chest.

Then to give credit to the PRL, they are playing their cards close to the vest. Everything they are doing is choreographed to lead into the discussions.

I still feel we will emerge with a proper European club competition which is not to different than what we have now. The frustrating thing is we know only what has been released to us. And the real truth is we know absolutely zero. Except that something will change.

SecretFly wrote:BTW, it wouldn't be very bad at all if a single organisation took overall territorial ownership of a sport - afterall, that's what PRL head is trying to do...so I think the RFU could make a fist of it, longer experience on the CV than BT and all that and sure aren't their hobbies/activities even in the right area. "What do you like to do at the weekends, RFU?" "Em,well, I like a bit of organising rugby, been doing it most of my life".

Badly? Who said that??

Ah! But you forget that we (the RFU) have the mighty presence of Captain Squeaky at the helm to navigate HMS Rose through the stormy waters. He'll keelhaul the offensive blighters from the PRL. maybe

doctor_grey wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:The fact is i've read pretty much every single piece of literature written on this story since it broke and i still have no idea how the English or ERC are going to play it, let alone the French who have kept their cards very close to their chest.

Then to give credit to the PRL, they are playing their cards close to the vest. Everything they are doing is choreographed to lead into the discussions.

I still feel we will emerge with a proper European club competition which is not to different than what we have now. The frustrating thing is we know only what has been released to us. And the real truth is we know absolutely zero. Except that something will change.

Cards kept close to chest is one way of playing poker but cheating gets you shot. So, yes, we know very little of the detail. I certainly haven't laid eyes on the famous BT/PRL contract............... but unless someone is lying/cheating, I at least know that the contract exists - it's real and it seems to suggest/claim rights all over the place where many (including a few major organisational players) would disagree. So if it's choreography, the only way I could see such a show develop is for the PRL to walk into the ERC office with smiles on their faces as they look at their very concerned adversaries and laugh out "We were only kiddin' the lot of yis!!! We don't have a contract with BT for everything at all. Just wanted to see the look on your faces. Priceless by the way".

It's either that or the PRL really do have a contract that claims to be all things to all men - and it could get dirty if it turns out it isn't legally binding. Someone is going to want compo........................................

I would assume the contracts have all the requisite escape clauses and/or the 'what-if' clauses. Again, all we know is the PRL signed up with BT.

Look mate, I really don't like the not knowing. Do I really trust any of the Unions to work for everyone's benefit? Clearly not. Do I believe the PRL have the ability to screw up a wet dream? Yes. The RFU have already proven what they can do..........

But in general, the Premiership club owners are smart, tough businessmen who have built or grown their own businesses. As opposed to the RFU which still has some of the old boys club. The question is what these guys really want or whether they are all really aligned on what they want. And that is what we really don't know. And drives me (and I suppose all of us) nuts.

Hear hear Doc.

Unfortunately I always seem to feel that if they (the PRL/RFU) arranged a birthday party for a five-year-old, they'd make sure that there would be enough G&Ts.

Once again I was hopeful when this deal was announced. Now I fear an almighty c0ck-up.

So the RFU now claim they never gave PRL permission to sign any new TV deals. Premier Rugby appear to have operated entirely to their own instincts without seeing fit to consult anyone until pen was put to paper. What do people think about this?

As it stands, The Premiership is not set up to give European spots to the top 6 in its league.

Knowsit17 wrote:So the RFU now claim they never gave PRL permission to sign any new TV deals. Premier Rugby appear to have operated entirely to their own instincts without seeing fit to consult anyone until pen was put to paper. What do people think about this?

And you knows it, Knowsit.

They really took some second-rate legal advice on this one. This could be embarrassing, on a Global scale. They came too soon.
It's all a veil of tears in the making. Legal proceedings will make some people rich. It's just a game folks. But I reckon heads will roll.

Change will come. But I think it will be solved by a set of compromises. Both structurally and financially. Its how it works.

The HC is not dead. Long Live the HC.

Believe.

Mr. Gibson,
Methinks you might be a bit early with your prediction that the heads of the PRL will soon be lead up Tyburn Hill for a cranial removal. But I give big points for the "veil of tears". I love that. I want to see something happen so I can cop the expression and someone will think I am actually poetic or intellectual.

And not for nothing, the HEC is not going anywhere. It will be there despite everyone's best efforts to muck it up. Trust me, baby.

Gibson wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

allyt2k wrote:someone has there wires crossed and have made a complete mess

Quote from Mark McCafferty, chief executive of Premiership Rugby

"I want to emphasise that our objective is to remain in the Heineken Cup," he said. "The television deal we have agreed with BT will increase the size of the pot for everyone in Europe. Scotland and Italy will benefit: what we want is to increase the size of the cake rather than argue about slices.

Quote from Marc Watson chief executive of BT

"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.

are the PRL and BT even talking to each other? doesn't sound that way

That just about sums it up.... PRL have sold something they don't have the rights to, to a company who believe they now own rugby in England.

Marc Watson said: 'We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively".

That is a chilling statement. Hopefully spoken in ignorance.

I thought so too...

Peter Wheeler, PR rep on the gaming board, RFU negotiator and Tigers chairman was at the meeting on the 6th of June as part of the ERC board of Directors that arranged the new four year deal with BSkyB. Tigers agree to the deal with BT along with apparently all the clubs under the PRL.

Not quite sure whether, as a director on two boards, (actually three I suppose including Tigers as well), whether you are allowed to arrange two deals that contradict each other. Certainly when you agree on one deal in June you should remember that you can not then sell the same thing you had already sold to some one else with an inflated value...

One of you Lawyers will have to remind me of the terminology for doing that.... I am usually the client not one of the Learned Friends.

ERC Board of Directors present at the 6th June 2012 meeting where it was agreed that ERC would arrange rites for BSkyB to show European Rugby Cup for the next four years.


Independent Chairman: Jean-Pierre Lux

England: Rob Andrew (RFU), Peter Wheeler (Premiership Rugby)
France: Michel Palmié (FFR), René Bouscatel (LNR)
Ireland: Philip Browne (IRFU), Peter Boyle (IRFU)
Italy: Fabrizio Gaetaniello (FIR), Orazio Arancio (FIR)
Scotland: Ian McLauchlan (SRU), Mark Dodson (SRU)
Wales: Roger Lewis (WRU), Stuart Gallacher (RRW)

What in the hell is this guy McCafferty playing at, the guy is a colossal idiot.

Artful_Dodger wrote:What in the hell is this guy McCafferty playing at, the guy is a colossal idiot.

Possibly actually a Crook...? Could also tie a few other PR Directors and club execs in. Looks like Peter Wheeler new what was going on on all boards and was part of both the deal made with ERC and BSkyB as well as the deal between PR and BT.

maestegmafia wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:What in the hell is this guy McCafferty playing at, the guy is a colossal idiot.

Possibly actually a Crook...? Could also tie a few other PR Directors and club execs in. Looks like Peter Wheeler new what was going on on all boards and was part of both the deal made with ERC and BSkyB as well as the deal between PR and BT.

Well not quite. Just because you are present in a meeting doesn't mean you agree with every decision.

We don't know what was said during this meeting do we?

The simple truth is at the moment post 2014 nothing exists. So both these 'deals' to sell the tv rights may have no foundation.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:What in the hell is this guy McCafferty playing at, the guy is a colossal idiot.

Possibly actually a Crook...? Could also tie a few other PR Directors and club execs in. Looks like Peter Wheeler new what was going on on all boards and was part of both the deal made with ERC and BSkyB as well as the deal between PR and BT.

Well not quite. Just because you are present in a meeting doesn't mean you agree with every decision.

We don't know what was said during this meeting do we?

The simple truth is at the moment post 2014 nothing exists. So both these 'deals' to sell the tv rights may have no foundation.

The ERC deal seems to have a bit more weight than the aspirations for the BT one. It is agreed by all unions, their representatives and ratified by the IRB. THree key things the BT one hadn't consulted.

Actually both deals seem to be exactly the same. The PRL have claimed that no such agreement was made at the meeting. We'll have to wait and see. Also the ERC participation agreement between the unions that allows for the ERC to deal with TV rights doesn't exist after 2014 and the ERC have to get an extension. Regardless of what the board decided, the board does not have the power to do that as things stand.

The PRL have sold the rights, also to a competition that doesn't exist. They control the TV rights for their own games, but the RFU have come out and said that their agreement didn't include European games.

So basically both sides have sold rights that belong to the RFU. The RFU so far has not passed on the power to sell these rights to anyone else beyond 2014. It'll be interesting to see who's side they come down on. My money is on the PRL.

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually both deals seem to be exactly the same. The PRL have claimed that no such agreement was made at the meeting. We'll have to wait and see. Also the ERC participation agreement between the unions that allows for the ERC to deal with TV rights doesn't exist after 2014 and the ERC have to get an extension. Regardless of what the board decided, the board does not have the power to do that as things stand.

The PRL have sold the rights, also to a competition that doesn't exist. They control the TV rights for their own games, but the RFU have come out and said that their agreement didn't include European games.

So basically both sides have sold rights that belong to the RFU. The RFU so far has not passed on the power to sell these rights to anyone else beyond 2014. It'll be interesting to see who's side they come down on. My money is on the PRL.

If the RFU were about to stand shoulder to shoulder with the PRL I don't think they would have investigated the legality of PRs deal with BT or then stated in the PRess last night that they did not see it as LEGALLY binding.

Why not? You think they should have done it behind closed doors? No doubt you would have been screaming 'deceit' if that happened and came to light.

No doubt the RFU will be sitting down with the PRL before Tuesday to find out what they want to do and what concessions they'll grant the RFU for their backing.

BUT the ERC have done the same thing as the PRL. Exactly the same thing.

HammerofThunor wrote:BUT the ERC have done the same thing as the PRL. Exactly the same thing.

No the ERC haven't. The ERC discussion on June the 6th was an amicable on with all parties involved.

PR just tried to sell something that they do not have the rights to sell.

The ERC board did not have the power to sell rights from 2014. It doesn't matter who was on the board or who voted for what. The RFU have NOT given the ERC the power to sell their TV rights after the participation agreement expires in 2014.

The ERC have sold the rights THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS TO SELL (I'm slightly sorry for shouting but I'm getting sick of repeating myself).

I imagine the rights were sold on the proviso that the power to sell TV rights was expended. Just as the PRL deal was done on the proviso that the European club rights would go to the PRL, just like the League club rights have.

That's not even counting the fact the PRL have claimed no TV deal was agreed at that meeting. something you don't seem to have mentioned in your multitude of quotes (sorry if I missed it).

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:BUT the ERC have done the same thing as the PRL. Exactly the same thing.

No the ERC haven't. The ERC discussion on June the 6th was an amicable on with all parties involved.

PR just tried to sell something that they do not have the rights to sell.

But how can the ERC sell the rights to teams that have previously served noticed?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/12/premiership-rugby-bt-deal-broadcast

The stance has been seen as a selfish one, designed to enhance the strong at the expense of the relatively weak, Scotland and Italy, but Premiership Rugby's chief executive, Mark McCafferty, denied that is the case.

"I want to emphasise that our objective is to remain in the Heineken Cup," he said. "The television deal we have agreed with BT will increase the size of the pot for everyone in Europe. Scotland and Italy will benefit: what we want is to increase the size of the cake rather than argue about slices.

"Our television contract will allow that and there could be a similar deal in France. Everyone benefits and far from looking to shrink the game in Europe, we propose to introduce a third competition to include teams from countries like Russia, Spain, Georgia and Portugal.

"We are ambitious for rugby in Europe. We have come up with a financial solution and now we have to get a rugby one."



I think it's an absolute disgrace that PRL has brought a deal to the table for an as yet unagreed European competition that would share more money with everyone involved. ERC are the only ones who should be able to do exactly the same thing, and for less money. In fact, I think players should offer to play for nothing in a European competition and the TV rights should just be given away. What do PRL think this is, some sort of business, that clubs should be making a profit, and that their players and other club personnel rely on to make a living!

Irish and Welsh are rumoured to be tabling a counter proposal at next week's meeting of a 20 team comp with a top placed 8-6-6 split.

Jenifer McLadyboy also in Sept 2012 wrote:Let me see if I have this straight. The English clubs with 1/12th of a stake in the ERC go on a solo run, pi$$ everyone off, and think the French will back them up?

Then some people on here think that the rest of Europe will just give in,   because???? Because it might void some deal 1/12th of them have made on this solo run? Are you on drugs?

The ERC will just cease to exist? Dream on....

I am sure there will be a few twists and turns in this one yet, and I think it is a pity to waste money on lawyers instead of talking to each other, but that is one outcome that will definitely not occur.

The French won't give a shyte about any Anglo French cup and will leave the poor English at the altar. The HC may be 2nd to the Top 14 in France, but they still would have it every day and twice on Sundays before any other aul yoke the PRL and BT might dream up.

I just hate fecken smug bastids with a few bottles of wine in them.

Worst feckers in the world  

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:The HC may be 2nd to the Top 14 in France, but they still would have it every day and twice on Sundays before any other aul yoke the PRL and BT might dream up.

 

Bless, you think the French clubs preferred option is coming back to the ERC and it's not happening under gunpoint.  I wouldn't be placing too many bets on French fidelity to the ERC over the next year if I were you.

nth wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy also in Sept 2012 wrote:Let me see if I have this straight. The English clubs with 1/12th of a stake in the ERC go on a solo run, pi$$ everyone off, and think the French will back them up?

Then some people on here think that the rest of Europe will just give in,   because???? Because it might void some deal 1/12th of them have made on this solo run? Are you on drugs?

The ERC will just cease to exist? Dream on....

I am sure there will be a few twists and turns in this one yet, and I think it is a pity to waste money on lawyers instead of talking to each other, but that is one outcome that will definitely not occur.

The French won't give a shyte about any Anglo French cup and will leave the poor English at the altar. The HC may be 2nd to the Top 14 in France, but they still would have it every day and twice on Sundays before any other aul yoke the PRL and BT might dream up.

I just hate fecken smug bastids with a few bottles of wine in them.

Worst feckers in the world  

Bless, you think the French clubs preferred option is coming back to the ERC and it's not happening under gunpoint.  I wouldn't be placing too many bets on French fidelity to the ERC over the next year if I were you.

While it is never clever to post at 3 am when you are pi$$ed as a newt and never classy to gloat. You are not exactly coming across as Classy McClass from Classtown yourself.

I pointed out 14 months ago in the original post that the French would leave the English at the altar. Forgive me for not knowing ALL of the shyte that would happen in between also.

Go back and find a few quotes from Sept 2012 from yourself and see how accurate they are.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

nth wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy also in Sept 2012 wrote:Let me see if I have this straight. The English clubs with 1/12th of a stake in the ERC go on a solo run, pi$$ everyone off, and think the French will back them up?

Then some people on here think that the rest of Europe will just give in,   because???? Because it might void some deal 1/12th of them have made on this solo run? Are you on drugs?

The ERC will just cease to exist? Dream on....

I am sure there will be a few twists and turns in this one yet, and I think it is a pity to waste money on lawyers instead of talking to each other, but that is one outcome that will definitely not occur.

The French won't give a shyte about any Anglo French cup and will leave the poor English at the altar. The HC may be 2nd to the Top 14 in France, but they still would have it every day and twice on Sundays before any other aul yoke the PRL and BT might dream up.

I just hate fecken smug bastids with a few bottles of wine in them.

Worst feckers in the world  

Bless, you think the French clubs preferred option is coming back to the ERC and it's not happening under gunpoint.  I wouldn't be placing too many bets on French fidelity to the ERC over the next year if I were you.

While it is never clever to post at 3 am when you are pi$$ed as a newt and never classy to gloat. You are not exactly coming across as Classy McClass from Classtown yourself.

I pointed out 14 months ago in the original post that the French would leave the English at the altar. Forgive me for not knowing ALL of the shyte that would happen in between also.

Go back and find a few quotes from Sept 2012 from yourself and see how accurate they are.

have the french left them at the alter though?

"French teams, who backed the new Rugby Champions Cup, have now committed to the current competition - as long as their English counterparts do likewise."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25146430

The PRL get their BT deal and will be straight back in. I've been saying that for months. The French got the reforms they wanted plus a wedge from the FFR. Now the PRL want their wedge and we're all golden for at least one season.