RFU say NO to PRL deal with BT...!

First topic message reminder :

Just in...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9544678/RFU-refuses-to-endorse-Premiership-Rugbys-bumper-152-million-TV-rights-deal-with-BT-vision.html

The RFU issued a statement laced with conciliatory intent, with chief executive Ian Ritchie seemingly eager to seek a resolution between the warring parties. But the governing body was unequivocal over the question of consent for the European broadcasting rights.
“The RFU will continue to liaise with all stakeholders, in order to help reach a conclusion which benefits all,” said the RFU in a statement last night. “While the RFU has not given consent to Premiership Rugby to grant European Broadcasting Rights, we believe it is important to work with them and with all parties involved to find common ground. We anticipate that this process will begin at the ERC stakeholder meeting on Tuesday.”

Pot Hale wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:Hammer, I take my hat off to you for stating the facts as clear as is possible !
and to Maesteg & Pot Hale for defending the Rabo concept.

Eh I didn't. But your use of the phrase "defending the Rabo concept" speaks volumes. What does this mean exactly?

I don't think I defended the concept either. Not sure what the concept is or if I or PH defended anything at all.

Seriously have to disagree with what HT thinks are facts wjen the unobjective would understand them to be much much less than factual. But that is very well covered above.

The reason the RFU is so keen to avoid the split being led by the clubs is that the current ERC structure is Union led. A bug chunk of the cash goes to the Unioins rather than direct to the clubs, the Uinions also have control over how they nominate their entrants.
A Franglo cup or breakaway Henio replacement wouldnt give them the same control and could see clubs further erode the control Unions have over the clubs.


In terms of competition in the market place is it a bad thing that somone is willing and able to mount a a challenge the Skys dominance? it may be easier having a single provider but is it healthy for Murdochs lot to dominate the TV market in England? Not to suggest that BT is run by the Angel Gabriel or anything but its nice to think some competition may keep prices under control.


When it comes down to it I think we all want to see a strong Euro cup competition, with clubs for a range of countries capable of making finals.
But for that to happen or continue there has to be an acceptance of reality and all partners taken forward together. The ERCs pig headed inability to even negotiate negotiations and listen to what they were being told could have stopped this step being taken.
The English and French clubs and their markets produce the majority of the revenue for the competition, but they dont see it come back to them. instead its used to fund the opposition. Nor does the current model match their requirements for scheduling, player management and running of their domestic leagues ( which certainly in the case of the French is far more profitable than the Euro cups)
It was pretty inevitable some kind of hornets nest would get kicked at some point, especially with the French having set a deadline before they withdraw from the HC which seems to have been largely ignored by the "powers that be".

The situation as is isnt good for anyone. Court battles, recriminations, and Unions refusing to compromise wont patch things up.

The ERC organised the meeting at the request of the French Clubs for Tuesday next week.

I don't think they are being pigheaded. They are being receptive to the wishes of the unions involved.

As for this argument over Rabbo qualification it is a bit of an enigma, possibly a smokescreen, as the only teams guaranteed automatic annual entry to the HEC as it stands are Italy and Scotland. Not the RP12 as a whole as is constantly being touted.

It is interesting that prl will not disclose the split of bt's £152million between european and aviva rugby. It was suggested in the rugby paper today that the split is £100million for european rugby rights and £52million for the aviva which suggests that prl's hand is weaker than many think especially if they do not own the rights for the £100million proportion.

Knowsit17 wrote:The English and French already have the greatest individual representation in the HC.

Really?
English = 50% of sides
Welsh = min 75% poss 100% of sides
Irish = min 75% poss 100% of sides (like this year)
Scots = 100% every year
Italian = 100% every year (even if one side has never played a game in its history)

The first HC had no English or Scottish representation but Romanian sides made up the numbers 3 each for France Wales(cardiff,ponty and swansea) and Ireland, 2 for Italy and one for Romania

English sides joined the year after and Eng,Fra,Wal had 4 each Ire and Sco had 3 and Itl 2
It went up to 6 each for england and france in 99-2000 and wales increased to 5 clubs(over 50% of league)
The year the regions were formed Wales had 100% of clubs involved and only lost a place when the Warriors went into liquidation

So pretty much most of the history of the cup the Rabo nations have had a higher percentage (over50%) of their sides in the HC. Is that fair? Who's fault is it to let that happen? will we all grow up and realise that we will end up with a slighly tweeked for the better(FOR ALL) cup? or shall we carry on our merry way down the slagging of other nations because of some blown out of all preportion pre contract negotations bluster?

But for scotland or italy to have a lower % representation than england they would have to have a representation of nil% due to the fact that they have dispanded with their clubs and formed regions. The issue of automatic qualification is englands not the rabo leagues. If they want want automatic qualification for their teams then they should form regions.

Scrumdown wrote:It is interesting that prl will not disclose the split of bt's £152million between european and aviva rugby. It was suggested in the rugby paper today that the split is £100million for european rugby rights and £52million for the aviva which suggests that prl's hand is weaker than many think especially if they do not own the rights for the £100million proportion.

If it's not been disclosed what are the rugby papers numbers based on? The original SKY + ESPN deal was worth around £52M. If the PRL have split the money like that then any suggests they're being greedy should be cast aside. They could have increased the Premiership side and kept it all. Lowering the European part that would be split. I'm also not sure how that makes the PRL's hand weaker. If they're coming in a solid deal worth a lot of cash they coming from a strong place. If they have similar numbers for the other European games from BT then I can sell the unions falling over themselves to get their hands on it.

Maesteg, the ERC set up the meeting after notice had been given and negotiations had been forced. If the had agreed to negotiate the format then the clubs wouldn't have had to give notice and this could have been sorted out months ago.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:It is interesting that prl will not disclose the split of bt's £152million between european and aviva rugby. It was suggested in the rugby paper today that the split is £100million for european rugby rights and £52million for the aviva which suggests that prl's hand is weaker than many think especially if they do not own the rights for the £100million proportion.

If it's not been disclosed what are the rugby papers numbers based on? The original SKY + ESPN deal was worth around £52M. If the PRL have split the money like that then any suggests they're being greedy should be cast aside. They could have increased the Premiership side and kept it all. Lowering the European part that would be split. I'm also not sure how that makes the PRL's hand weaker. If they're coming in a solid deal worth a lot of cash they coming from a strong place. If they have similar numbers for the other European games from BT then I can sell the unions falling over themselves to get their hands on it.

Maesteg, the ERC set up the meeting after notice had been given and negotiations had been forced. If the had agreed to negotiate the format then the clubs wouldn't have had to give notice and this could have been sorted out months ago.

Hammer they set up a meeting when they were asked to do so. They did that. The ERC didn't creat a situation where any party was forced to do anything. PRL have made a big stink in the English press about it to help negotiate the big deal they want to make with BT Vision.

The French have also withdrawn from future ERC competitions pending a discussion with ERC but are being more amicable about it as they do not appear to have any apparent need for underhand negotiating tactics. The RFU also seem to be inclined with the French style of non nuclear diplomacy.

I think the Irish proposal of 8,6, 6 for a 20 team competition is a smart one. It gives every country a fighting chance of qualifying and lets McCafferty tell his members that he 'won' his concession of having a league position in place for this agreement. It won't make a blind bit of difference to the Irish provinces which is why they've said nothing about the proposals to date.

Connacht, Sale, Worcester, Zebre, Dragons, Bayonne, etc all get consigned to a comp in which they can do well in, and there's more money to spread around at the top table.

There is no value in having an individual TV rights sell off, so they should clap McCafferty on the back for that and say well done fella good on you.

A few tweaks to the seedings, home semis, and foreign player quotas and the job is oxo.

The Irish and French teams could come very well out of this as they're the only ones with squad set ups to be able to compete on two fronts.

According to the rugby paper, prl are bringing £100m of bt european money to the table at the meeting next week which is £30million more than the £70million offered by sky. Prl's position is weaker because the majority of the headline figure of £152m would seem to be conditional on them agreeing a cross border competition with the rabo countries and the french each of whom prl have antagonised over the last week.

Scrumdown wrote:According to the rugby paper, prl are bringing £100m of bt european money to the table at the meeting next week which is £30million more than the £70million offered by sky. Prl's position is weaker because the majority of the headline figure of £152m would seem to be conditional on them agreeing a cross border competition with the rabo countries and the french each of whom prl have antagonised over the last week.

Yes, you can only bring 100 million to a show if the show goes ahead. It's not real money until the show happens and the clubs and competition starts looking for some of the promised money.
As far as I can understand it, BT will have an initial tough job to actually make the necessary inroads into the homes of the prospective customers who would be the ones to turn their investment into actual profits.
So they'll be fighting a battle on two fronts if they win the initial European contract. Establishing themselves as good providers to the European competition and rapidly fighting to collect the audience they'll require to turn their expenditure into real business sense.

SKY with its 70 million, doesn't need to worry about that side of things and offers an existing audience - half the battle already won, you might say, to cautious clubs who are feeling on the edge of things financially already.

Knackeredknees wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:The English and French already have the greatest individual representation in the HC.

Really?
English = 50% of sides
Welsh = min 75% poss 100% of sides
Irish = min 75% poss 100% of sides (like this year)
Scots = 100% every year
Italian = 100% every year (even if one side has never played a game in its history)

The first HC had no English or Scottish representation but Romanian sides made up the numbers 3 each for France Wales(cardiff,ponty and swansea) and Ireland, 2 for Italy and one for Romania

English sides joined the year after and Eng,Fra,Wal had 4 each Ire and Sco had 3 and Itl 2
It went up to 6 each for england and france in 99-2000 and wales increased to 5 clubs(over 50% of league)
The year the regions were formed Wales had 100% of clubs involved and only lost a place when the Warriors went into liquidation

So pretty much most of the history of the cup the Rabo nations have had a higher percentage (over50%) of their sides in the HC. Is that fair? Who's fault is it to let that happen? will we all grow up and realise that we will end up with a slighly tweeked for the better(FOR ALL) cup? or shall we carry on our merry way down the slagging of other nations because of some blown out of all preportion pre contract negotations bluster?

Not a very clever or subtle way of trying to twist my original statement but I'll respond anyway. I wasn't talking about individual percentages. England are guaranteed 6 clubs a year, as are France. Wales and Ireland are only guaranteed 3 each, they have to win either the HC or the Amlin to enter a fourth. Scotland and Italy only get two guaranteed spots each.

Already an advantage in England and France's favour exactly as I said. Only they want more, they want to be the only two unions guaranteed representation full stop. Under their proposals of having it trimmed nobody else would enjoy that luxury. So I should be asking you, how is that fair?

I see a lot of PR sympathisers trying to play along and act the role of the victims in this case when all they're really interested in is themselves. Their conduct is not with the common interests of rugby at heart, it is morally and ethically rotten. Stay in denial all you want, we won't stop seeing it for what it is

Thing is the previous English premiership TV rights were sold for £52M over 3 years. In an Irish Times article posted by Feckless it suggested the ERC gets around 15-20M Euros a year. And that's in total. So a 4 year deal with BT for just the English games is worth £100M? Even if it includes the English away games it's massive increase. With no increase for the Premiership league. It just makes me skeptical of it's accuracy. Although it may of course be right. Trying to exact numbers on things can be tricky.

Maesteg, they set up the negotiation because they were forced to. http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18353.php
It was part of the original participation agreement (that runs out in 2014). The French claimed that had asked negotiations and they were refused, hence them putting in their notice to force it.

Let's all face it. Whether BT's gambit on becoming a big player in Sports works or not depends almost entirely on the English football viewing public. Rugby's a side project.

Knowsit, fair or not doesn't really come into it. The French and English clubs want it to be a competition where participation is based on leagues. They want this because it benefits them. The PRO12 Unions don't want this. Because the current set up benefits them. The current suggestions are that the PRO12 unions will indeed go to league based participation. Whether this actually comes to fruition or not remains to be seen.

So Thunor, you don't believe fairness should be the priority in finding a solution that satisfies both sides? What exactly is your take on all this? Your opinion that is to say. Are you siding entirely with Premier Rugby in their rigid and careless approach or do you believe any new format should ethically satisfy both parties without one's interests coming above the other's?

As for the league-based idea, I don't see why they would possibly bring forward that type of concept unless it was entirely to benefit them, which brings us round in a circle to morals and fair play again. If you wanted a league vs league type of tournament, might as well just scrap the HC and play one game a year in its place, a combined Rabo team vs a combined Franglo team. And I doubt anyone wants that to be the case.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Knowsit, fair or not doesn't really come into it. The French and English clubs want it to be a competition where participation is based on leagues. They want this because it benefits them. The PRO12 Unions don't want this. Because the current set up benefits them. The current suggestions are that the PRO12 unions will indeed go to league based participation. Whether this actually comes to fruition or not remains to be seen.

I think you're supposing too far in saying the Pro 12 unions don't want this. When have they said this?

The only ERC shareholder shouting the odds publicly has been PRL, with the LNR chipping in occasionally.

I believe the PRL proposal will benefit the Irish provinces substantially. Whether it's 6 or 8 is secondary. The only possible drawback is that such a proposal would impoverish the Scottish, Welsh and Italian teams to such an extent that the PRO 12 league becomes unsustainable,in which case 8 makes more business sense in the wider picture.

An Anglo-French competition is not a realistic prospect, and I don't believe that it would be a first preference of either the French or BT for that matter. The best outcome is a collective agreement.

Whining about who said what to whom and this is how things were is a waste of time at this point. Change is going to happen because a number of parties want it to. I don't believe for a moment that English and French clubs are the only ones who want a change for the next agreement.

Knowsit17 wrote:So Thunor, you don't believe fairness should be the priority in finding a solution that satisfies both sides? What exactly is your take on all this? Your opinion that is to say. Are you siding entirely with Premier Rugby in their rigid and careless approach or do you believe any new format should ethically satisfy both parties without one's interests coming above the other's?

As for the league-based idea, I don't see why they would possibly bring forward that type of concept unless it was entirely to benefit them, which brings us round in a circle to morals and fair play again. If you wanted a league vs league type of tournament, might as well just scrap the HC and play one game a year in its place, a combined Rabo team vs a combined Franglo team. And I doubt anyone wants that to be the case.

You're assuming that this is two "sides" - two versus four. It's not. In fact the more that you define the four unions as being one Rabo collective - the more you entrench the notion of three leagues. The French have one view, the English another, the Irish another, and so on.

Fair point Pot. True the PRO12 Unions have no publicly stated anything and it was an assumption of mine.

Knowsit, fairly is entirely objective.

In my opinion, if the RFU grant the PRL the control of TV rights for European games they've done nothing wrong in selling them to whomever. IF the sold rights are around £100M that has been suggested that means that the PRL have brought a much bigger stake to the pot than the ERC was getting from Sky.

Should the PRL use this big stake and the threat of their withdrawal to make the PRO12 unions do what they want? No. Have they done that? No.

But the current format of the European cup was set up before the PRO12 league was created. It is time for a renegotiation on the competitions structure (even if the result is that it stays the same, the discussion should be had). Note this is a negotiation. If a participation agreement is going to be renewed then all parties will have to agree. This includes the Scots and Italians. If qualification becomes based on league position then it will be because the Scots and Italians have agreed on it. Either because they were paid off, they're willing to prove themselves in the league or they were forced to by the WRU and IRFU regarding inclusion in the PRO12. If they don't agree then they simply won't sign a participation agreement. At that point a new group must be formed and it must be ratified by the IRB. If they think the offer given to the Italians and Scots was fair they will allow the new competition to go ahead. If not then they will insist of fair terms being given. All of this is of course is made up supposition.

The only thing the PRL have done 'wrong' is sell the European rights if they were not covered by the agreement with the RFU in 2007. I believe if they have done this it was by accident on their part and they have put themselves at the mercy of the RFU. I also don't think the RFU would risk the BT deal falling through with the clubs because it would destroy relations between them. Something which has been pretty good in the recent years.

HammerofThunor wrote:
The only thing the PRL have done 'wrong' is sell the European rights if they were not covered by the agreement with the RFU in 2007. I believe if they have done this it was by accident on their part and they have put themselves at the mercy of the RFU. I also don't think the RFU would risk the BT deal falling through with the clubs because it would destroy relations between them. Something which has been pretty good in the recent years.

I am not sure you are right to trust the RFU. Over the years they have shown themselves uninterested in the realities of professional club rugby and only concerned with good relations with their fellow blazers on the IRB. Remember Rob Andrew is involved.

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:According to the rugby paper, prl are bringing £100m of bt european money to the table at the meeting next week which is £30million more than the £70million offered by sky. Prl's position is weaker because the majority of the headline figure of £152m would seem to be conditional on them agreeing a cross border competition with the rabo countries and the french each of whom prl have antagonised over the last week.

Yes, you can only bring 100 million to a show if the show goes ahead. It's not real money until the show happens and the clubs and competition starts looking for some of the promised money.
As far as I can understand it, BT will have an initial tough job to actually make the necessary inroads into the homes of the prospective customers who would be the ones to turn their investment into actual profits.
So they'll be fighting a battle on two fronts if they win the initial European contract. Establishing themselves as good providers to the European competition and rapidly fighting to collect the audience they'll require to turn their expenditure into real business sense.

SKY with its 70 million, doesn't need to worry about that side of things and offers an existing audience - half the battle already won, you might say, to cautious clubs who are feeling on the edge of things financially already.

You may be right in saying BT might struggle to make money out of this but what concern is that to the PRL or anyone else. BT have revenues of $30billion. They are not going to default.

Exiledinborders wrote:
You may be right in saying BT might struggle to make money out of this but what concern is that to the PRL or anyone else. BT have revenues of $30billion. They are not going to default.

Absolutely, and they are probably not best pleased that the likes of Virgin and Sky are moving out of media only and starting to cut into BT's phone market. You can be pretty confident that this, in combination with them buying up the football, is part of BTs fight back. In many ways the current issue (i.e. the selling of tv rights) may have nothing to do with the structure of the tournament and PRL (possibly + TOP14) v PRO12. It may have far more to do with the vastly more heavyweight battle between BT and Sky. Given the current standing of News International and anyone associated with them there may also be a lot of pressure from on high for BT to come out on top in this particular struggle.

As an aside does anyone know how much Sky have paid for the ERC rights? I notice from the articles I have seen that this doesn't seem to be mentioned. Would be good to know, as the main point in PRLs sale of viewing rights is not the structure of the tournament but that they think ERC were underselling it. If PRL haven't actually got any more on the table they'd look a tad silly in that respect, likewise if ERC have sold all the rights for little more (or less) than PRL have sold just the rights to the home games then they have some explaining to do.

Big wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:
You may be right in saying BT might struggle to make money out of this but what concern is that to the PRL or anyone else. BT have revenues of $30billion. They are not going to default.

Absolutely, and they are probably not best pleased that the likes of Virgin and Sky are moving out of media only and starting to cut into BT's phone market. You can be pretty confident that this, in combination with them buying up the football, is part of BTs fight back. In many ways the current issue (i.e. the selling of tv rights) may have nothing to do with the structure of the tournament and PRL (possibly + TOP14) v PRO12. It may have far more to do with the vastly more heavyweight battle between BT and Sky. Given the current standing of News International and anyone associated with them there may also be a lot of pressure from on high for BT to come out on top in this particular struggle.

As an aside does anyone know how much Sky have paid for the ERC rights? I notice from the articles I have seen that this doesn't seem to be mentioned. Would be good to know, as the main point in PRLs sale of viewing rights is not the structure of the tournament but that they think ERC were underselling it. If PRL haven't actually got any more on the table they'd look a tad silly in that respect, likewise if ERC have sold all the rights for little more (or less) than PRL have sold just the rights to the home games then they have some explaining to do.

Interesting article from Brian Moore on the subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9547001/The-French-clubs-hold-the-key-in-war-over-European-rugbys-riches.html

He mentions a figure of a 12.5% uplift on the SKY deal. Given the period it covers that's barely an inflationary rise.

Biased bleating from moore.

It boils down to this -= do you want a good european competition that is entertaining and fair - or do you want an anglo french cup with token representation? How long do you think it will last with no scots, no italians, 2 welsha dn 2 irish teams?

TJ wrote:Biased bleating from moore.

It boils down to this -= do you want a good european competition that is entertaining and fair - or do you want an anglo french cup with token representation? How long do you think it will last with no scots, no italians, 2 welsha dn 2 irish teams?

Fair means fair for all, not just fair from your point of view. The fact this situation has arisen means that from an English and French perspective the current arrangement isn't fair.

In terms of Moore I'm English so probably not the best judge but I've usually found him pretty even handed and more than happy to lay into the PRL/RFU when necessary.

In terms of do I want a good European competition? If you asked me a while ago I would have said no doubt but now I'm not so sure. Seems that financially if things didn't change much we'd be better without it. Would probably mean player welfare would improve with less fixtures. You always want to test yourselves against the best but if you remove the French the only team that would provide a serious step up in terms of opposition would be Leinster so I have to conclude that at the moment, I couldn't really give a rats if there is one or not.

Toadfish wrote:
He mentions a figure of a 12.5% uplift on the SKY deal. Given the period it covers that's barely an inflationary rise.

Quite. Given that once again it doesn't actually say how much it is it's pretty difficult to draw any kind of comparison with the BT deal.

Toadfish wrote: You always want to test yourselves against the best but if you remove the French the only team that would provide a serious step up in terms of opposition would be Leinster so I have to conclude that at the moment, I couldn't really give a rats if there is one or not.

yeah right - so remind me how many english clubs in the last eight?

The nasty blinkered selfish attitude of the english clubs and some of the posters on here stinks. the english proposals would mean the end of scots and italian rugby within a few years and would be very damaging to the welsh and irish. You already get the lions share of the money adn the representatioon.

So yes - english clubs - go away and try to make your own tournament. dunno who you will play with. It won't be the rest of the european unions. we have been this way before tice - and both times the english clubs had to tuck their tail between their legs and grovel in the end. this is no differnt.

the europena cup without the english is a far better prospect that one without Scots, Italians and with only token cannon fodder from wales

TJ wrote:The nasty blinkered selfish attitude of the english clubs and some of the posters on here stinks.

Well, that attitude will certainly win us over. You're not here for that though are you? Just to insult us baby-eating English and no one will tell you otherwise.

Back under your bridge TJ.

They are 'proposals' if the offer was countered with 1 guaranteed side from every union and the rest based on league position then it would probably be agreed.

From a complete layman I'd say if I was preparing to negotiate I would start at a point that I don't really expect to be met at. They each side gives a bit. The starting proposal was 6 from each league based on league performance. So this is the top end. I don't expect this to be the end point.

There was an Irish Times article that suggested the current Sky deal is 15-20M Euros per year. I think it was suggested in there that the new Sky deal is about the same. So even an inflationary rise would be better than 0%. Not sure where the numbers have come from.

Exiledinborders, Rob Andrew was brought in specifically because he WAS running one of the clubs. Since then we've had massive payouts to the clubs for extra time with the players. We've also passed half the RFU shares in the ERC to the PRL. The current EPS deal runs out in 2016 (or 2015) and I can see them giving the European rights to the PRL up until this point and use them and the Premiership rights renewal to gain concession from the PRL regarding smoothing of EPS payments, etc.

TJ apparently the IRFU have a proposal for the top 8 of the PRO12 qualifying for HEC. And the WRU have give them their backing. No idea if that's true but that's what's been suggested. And think the English are being selfish for not giving Scottish rugby handouts?

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote: You always want to test yourselves against the best but if you remove the French the only team that would provide a serious step up in terms of opposition would be Leinster so I have to conclude that at the moment, I couldn't really give a rats if there is one or not.

yeah right - so remind me how many english clubs in the last eight?

The nasty blinkered selfish attitude of the english clubs and some of the posters on here stinks. the english proposals would mean the end of scots and italian rugby within a few years and would be very damaging to the welsh and irish. You already get the lions share of the money adn the representatioon.

So yes - english clubs - go away and try to make your own tournament. dunno who you will play with. It won't be the rest of the european unions. we have been this way before tice - and both times the english clubs had to tuck their tail between their legs and grovel in the end. this is no differnt.

the europena cup without the english is a far better prospect that one without Scots, Italians and with only token cannon fodder from wales

Excellent, well reasoned, literate response. The alternative would have been to stamp your feet, say it's not fair and run up to your room for a cry.

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:The nasty blinkered selfish attitude of the english clubs and some of the posters on here stinks.

Well, that attitude will certainly win us over. You're not here for that though are you? Just to insult us baby-eating English and no one will tell you otherwise.

Back under your bridge TJ.

Well its the english clubs that are being selfish.

Seriously - do you want to see a 4 N and no scottish or italian clubs in the european cup? thats what this will lead to.

the european cup is about creating the best european competition - not about maximising the money for the english clubs. Sometimes money is not everything.

Do you want a game that is played widely across europe or do you want to see the english clubs pay each other every week? Edinburgh - the semi finalists this year would not be in the competition under the english proposals.

You guys need to understand how this proposal is perceived elsewhere. as a selfish attempt to gather more money into the already powerful and rich english clubs. its nothing to do with fairness - its all to do with money and power and bugger everyone else. it stinks.

HammerofThunor wrote:. And think the English are being selfish for not giving Scottish rugby handouts?

No - I know the english clubs are selfish for wanting it all their way and for being a destructive influence.

its not about giving handouts - its about sharing things fairly. its about having a wider view and taking more than short term financial advantage for a small but powerful gruop.

as I say - I will bet that there are no significant changes and that the english clubs will have to back down.

Agan - do you really want to see Scotladn and italy ended as a force in club and international rugby and walse badly impoverished? do not be fooled - thats what this would lead to. a 4 N not 6N and only maybe 4 non english / french clubbs playing in europe.

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:According to the rugby paper, prl are bringing £100m of bt european money to the table at the meeting next week which is £30million more than the £70million offered by sky. Prl's position is weaker because the majority of the headline figure of £152m would seem to be conditional on them agreeing a cross border competition with the rabo countries and the french each of whom prl have antagonised over the last week.

Yes, you can only bring 100 million to a show if the show goes ahead. It's not real money until the show happens and the clubs and competition starts looking for some of the promised money.
As far as I can understand it, BT will have an initial tough job to actually make the necessary inroads into the homes of the prospective customers who would be the ones to turn their investment into actual profits.
So they'll be fighting a battle on two fronts if they win the initial European contract. Establishing themselves as good providers to the European competition and rapidly fighting to collect the audience they'll require to turn their expenditure into real business sense.

SKY with its 70 million, doesn't need to worry about that side of things and offers an existing audience - half the battle already won, you might say, to cautious clubs who are feeling on the edge of things financially already.

BT would have channels on both Sky and Virgin. There was a big thing in the papers a while back to try and force sky/virgin and BT to share their channels.

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:The nasty blinkered selfish attitude of the english clubs and some of the posters on here stinks.

Well, that attitude will certainly win us over. You're not here for that though are you? Just to insult us baby-eating English and no one will tell you otherwise.

Back under your bridge TJ.

Well its the english clubs that are being selfish.

Seriously - do you want to see a 4 N and no scottish or italian clubs in the european cup? thats what this will lead to.

the european cup is about creating the best european competition - not about maximising the money for the english clubs. Sometimes money is not everything.

Do you want a game that is played widely across europe or do you want to see the english clubs pay each other every week? Edinburgh - the semi finalists this year would not be in the competition under the english proposals.

You guys need to understand how this proposal is perceived elsewhere. as a selfish attempt to gather more money into the already powerful and rich english clubs. its nothing to do with fairness - its all to do with money and power and bugger everyone else. it stinks.

So you want the best competition then? Are zebera the best in Europe? The original comp was the best sides in the leagues, so with the regionalism of rugby in Scotland and Italy ment they only had two side that they could enter period no matter if both are garbage they play in the "elite" competition.

So should they qualify as they made the semi? If all semi finalist get automatic qual what about if they are the bottom of there league and the others finish higher lose out is that fair?

Anything else you want to lay the blame for at the English door? Global warming maybe? How about natural events maybe that's the evil PRL/RFU upsetting the balance in nature? Or how about the good old empire, that a good one to fall back on the empire and slavery was all the English fault!

I would rather play a european cup without english clubs than accept a proposal that would lead to the end of professional rugby in Scotland and Italy inevitably leading to a 4N not 6.

the best competition has wider aims than simply enriching a few english clubs - think how far italy have come and how much difference playing pro club rugby has made. You want to reverse this?

Some of you really need to get reala nd open your eyes to the damage being done to the wider gamein Europe by the selfish actions of some english clubs. Wales will suffer as well- they might survive semi pro but I doubt it.

the smaller teams need the stability of knowing they will be involved in the HC to allow them to plan and recruit for thefuture. Edinburghs cup run last year has meant around 25% extra on their budget. Not being in the HC would mean half the budget, reduction in quantity and quality of the playing staff and thus no chance of ever qualifying again.

TJ wrote:Edinburgh - the semi finalists this year would not be in the competition under the english proposals.

This has happened before. London Irish made the 2008 Heineken Cup semi finals where they lost to Toulouse. They did not play in the Heineken Cup in 2009. Also Northampton made the semi finals in 2007 but did not play in the 2008 Heineken Cup.

TJ, of course the clubs want it all their own way. Each of the unions also want it their own way. They then come to a compromise that all parties accept.

As I have already said. The FRENCH proposals (which the English clubs sided with) were the first step in the negotiations. The ERC will not continue unless all participants agree. the English clubs have not said "do exactly what we want or we walk". They've given their notice to force a renegotiation of the participation agreement. You seem to think this agreement should never be changed even though when it originally formed the PRO12 didn't even exist.

Middle ground will be found. If this middle ground includes the proposals laid out by the French exactly as they are then it means the unions (including the Italians and Scots agreed).

TJ
Unfortunately since rugby turned Pro it is about the money. The Prl have a deal which seems to provide enough money if there is no European competition,the French say they could make more from an expanded Top 12.Could the Rabo clubs survive without the HC money?

the european cup is about creating the best european competition

This is were things go a bit astray - it totally depends on what you want you think is the best?

From my pointof view its become stagnant. The top tier, the HC has little variation in the teams that are involved, and in fact is limited (some might seey this is as discriminatory) to teams from only 6 unions. Do you think thats good for rugby in Europe?

the already powerful and rich english clubs

I think you better go away and do a bit research - very few of the clubs make a profit, and those that do are not rolling in money - they have to be very careful over money management, particularly in this economic climate.

Agan - do you really want to see Scotladn and italy ended as a force in club and international rugby and walse badly impoverished? do not be fooled - thats what this would lead to. a 4 N not 6N and only maybe 4 non english / french clubbs playing in europe..

I don't see how the Franglo teams have any responsibility for the upkeep of teams from other nations. If the RFU managed to get more cash from the actions of the PRL, I would much prefer to see it going into the lower echelons of English rugby than spent elswhere. The Championship is crying out for extra funding and that's where my team is at the minute, so don't ask me to cry for other teams from other unions. The IRFU seem to be quids in under the current rules - why don't they subsidise the Scots and the Italians, they play in the same league so surely its in their best interests to do so?

Point missed - they would not have been there last year as they didn't finish high enough in the league.

The question remains - do you want to see the game develop and grow in europe or do you want to see all the money be concentrated in an ever smaller number of clubs?

How attractive do you think the HC will be when its an anglo french cup with a couple of token welsh and irish teams who get knocked out in the first round as their playing budget is so much smaller than the english and french clubs?

How good will the 6N be with amatuer Scots and Italians playing semi pro welsh and Irish laying pro English and French?

broadlandboy wrote:TJ
Unfortunately since rugby turned Pro it is about the money. The Prl have a deal which seems to provide enough money if there is no European competition,the French say they could make more from an expanded Top 12.Could the Rabo clubs survive without the HC money?

No they could not - that is the point. Without the HC games scotland and italy will have to revert to amateur teams only. Wales might manage semi pro.

TrailApe wrote:

the already powerful and rich english clubs

I think you better go away and do a bit research - very few of the clubs make a profit, and those that do are not rolling in money - they have to be very careful over money management, particularly in this economic climate.

the english clubs have a far bigger playing budget than the scots and Italians. Its not our fault that deficit funding.

TJ wrote:Without the HC games scotland and italy will have to revert to amateur teams only. Wales might manage semi pro.

Ah thats just being a drama queen

Are you really saying that half of Europe will not be able to sustain a professional game if the Heineken Cup is amended?

TrailApe wrote:

Agan - do you really want to see Scotladn and italy ended as a force in club and international rugby and walse badly impoverished? do not be fooled - thats what this would lead to. a 4 N not 6N and only maybe 4 non english / french clubbs playing in europe..

I don't see how the Franglo teams have any responsibility for the upkeep of teams from other nations. If the RFU managed to get more cash from the actions of the PRL, I would much prefer to see it going into the lower echelons of English rugby than spent elswhere. The Championship is crying out for extra funding and that's where my team is at the minute, so don't ask me to cry for other teams from other unions. The IRFU seem to be quids in under the current rules - why don't they subsidise the Scots and the Italians, they play in the same league so surely its in their best interests to do so?

SWo you are happy to see the end of pro rugby in scotland and Italy with the end of the HC as a europe wide cup and the end of the 6N? that is where this will lead. the HC money is essential to keeping Scotland as a competative pro rugby nation.

The only solution here is for the RFU to have greater control over the AP like every other top rugby nation. The AP and RFU need a symbiotic relationship for English rugby to prosper, they dont though.

Indeed I dont think the AP are going to get much support for their new proposals. If the Heineken cup has to go ahead without the English clubs so be it. Their loss but I cant see the French following suit.

red_stag wrote:

TJ wrote:Without the HC games scotland and italy will have to revert to amateur teams only. Wales might manage semi pro.

Ah thats just being a drama queen

Are you really saying that half of Europe will not be able to sustain a professional game if the Heineken Cup is amended?

If it is amended to mean much reduced representation then yes. without a doubt.

If Edinburgh are not in the HC then they will lose 25-50% of their playing budget or thereabouts. thus they will have to shed many of their players especially the stars. thus they will never be able to qualify again. this is why I am so angry about these proposals and why they are so short-sighted. Italian teams will be similarly affected. welsh teams are also in financial trouble. Edinburghs cup run last year has meant a significant increase in budget - the money is really that essential to them.

TJ
On another thread you agree that English clubs are not making money so why should the PRL subsidise regions from other Unions. The PRL/LNR claim that the ERC have undersold the TV rights,by the BT deal they claim to have proved it,rather than just saying so PRL have an actual deal.
IIRC the Scotish regions spend about the same as the English cap while the Italians have a bigger budget

TrailApe wrote:

the european cup is about creating the best european competition

This is were things go a bit astray - it totally depends on what you want you think is the best?

From my pointof view its become stagnant. The top tier, the HC has little variation in the teams that are involved, and in fact is limited (some might seey this is as discriminatory) to teams from only 6 unions. Do you think thats good for rugby in Europe?

the already powerful and rich english clubs

I think you better go away and do a bit research - very few of the clubs make a profit, and those that do are not rolling in money - they have to be very careful over money management, particularly in this economic climate.

Agan - do you really want to see Scotladn and italy ended as a force in club and international rugby and walse badly impoverished? do not be fooled - thats what this would lead to. a 4 N not 6N and only maybe 4 non english / french clubbs playing in europe..

I don't see how the Franglo teams have any responsibility for the upkeep of teams from other nations. If the RFU managed to get more cash from the actions of the PRL, I would much prefer to see it going into the lower echelons of English rugby than spent elswhere. The Championship is crying out for extra funding and that's where my team is at the minute, so don't ask me to cry for other teams from other unions. The IRFU seem to be quids in under the current rules - why don't they subsidise the Scots and the Italians, they play in the same league so surely its in their best interests to do so?

As sated in another article, the IRFU recieve 13% same as SRU WRU and FIR only get 11%

The rest comes from extra money from knock out stages, if SRU/WRU /FIR want this they have to get teams into the knockout, like the SRU did with Edinburgh last year.

broadlandboy wrote:TJ

IIRC the Scotish regions spend about the same as the English cap while the Italians have a bigger budget

Utter nonsense.

The problem here is that rugby is a business, so it makes sense that each union will want to look at their own best interests.

The reality is each union does not have the same market. So it is a question of whether they want their revenue from their own markets for themselves in order to be in a better financial situation.

On the other hand you have unions that are reliant on a coalisition between themselves and the "wealthier" or "bigger" markets.

It is always going to be controversial.

SA shares their merket with OZ and NZ, so financially it costs them, but they benefit from playing against the top nations and their Super Rugby teams.

It all depends on priorities.

Indeed bilktong.

TJ I felt sorry for the SRU untill you came along.

Most Scottish fans are accepting that they will be losing out, I think its fairly fair.

Think about it.

The SRU currently get 13% for entering 2 teams, the IRFU and WRU get 13% as well for entering 3 teams each.

Is it fair that the SRU get the same amount as the WRU and IRFU for entering less teams?

When the SRU disbanded the Boarders, they also lost out on ERC bargaining power.

Personally I think the SRU may have gotten more than they deserved for the last few years and it is being addressed.

I feel sorry for Scottish fans, as this has come about from the SRU being badly managed and disbanding the Boarders, and a reduction in H-cup qualifacation has been building since then.

Feel more sorry for the FIR who haven't had the chances the SRU had. But still they have been getting 11% of the participation part of the pot. (2% less than the IRFU not including knock out round bonuses) since the H-cup began, what have they been doing with it???