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

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 12:24 am

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.”

by Knowsit17 Sat 15 Sep 2012, 1:59 pm

nathan wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Maest
So you agree that the four Rabbo Nations gain an advantage from the HC as it is now

Eh? Where did he say that?

All people have done so far to answer for Premier Rugby is interpret things as they see fit, evading the real issue. The English and French already have the greatest individual representation in the HC. They're already at an advantage. They just want more advantage!

In your opinion of course, i can do the same thing..

The rabo teams already have an advantage, they don't want to lose it.

No, you can't. All you've done there is flatly state something you believe, or more likely hope, to be true. I explained my side through a long and detailed post earlier in the thread, which people thus far have chosen to ignore and avoid might I add. Where's your explanation?

by broadlandboy Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:00 pm

Knowsit
Maes says that it would be to the detriment of the four Rabbo Nations if the HC dissolves,so they must gain an advantage as it stands

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:02 pm

The PRL have said that no such agreement was made on the 6th June. THAT's going to be interesting as well.

It doesn't matter what the ERC agreed in the board meeting. They don't have the power to sell TV rights after 2014. They can agree all they want. They were running on the assumption that the Unions would continue to pass their powers on to the ERC. The PRL assumed that the power would revert to them, as the league rights already do.

Why is what the PRL have done so reprehensible but the what the ERC have done is morally right? They're the same thing. Both, it seems, have sold TV rights that belong to the RFU.

All the IRB can do is block the creation of a cross-boarder competition (and they would have to have a very good reason). What they can't do is force a cross-boarder competition; certainly not one with the TV rights being forcibly taken from Union that controls them and handed to a third party (ERC).

We all know the ERC is set up by 6 Unions. Isn't that the whole point of this? The English and French clubs want it to be set up by the three leagues instead. That's what the whole negotiation is going to be about. I imagine there will be some sort of middle group found. Each of the Rabo unions get one guaranteed representative and the rest will be on merit only. There will probably be a reduction in teams in the top tier to make the RABO merit qualification worthwhile. Whether the English and French also take a hit remains to be seen. That's what I reckon will happen. OR it won't happen at all.

by Knowsit17 Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:10 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Knowsit
Maes says that it would be to the detriment of the four Rabbo Nations if the HC dissolves,so they must gain an advantage as it stands

Being to their detriment in no way proves that the Pro12 have an unfair advantage. The dissolution of the HC would be to everyone's detriment might I add.

How is this difficult to understand? The English and French are already guaranteed more places each year than the Irish, Italians, Scots and Welsh. As it stands each of the Six Nations are guaranteed participation on an annual basis. PR want to abolish that to their own advantage. Their complaints of the current format being unfair are completely unfounded and painfully ironic.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:15 pm

I'll respond Knowsit

Knowsit17 wrote:Premier Rugby are trying to translate this as a battle of the leagues, they are pretending to be offended by the rights the RaboDirect Pro12 league has over their own.

This begs the question, when did leagues vs leagues become the issue more so than clubs vs clubs or countries vs countries? When it best befitted the interests of Premier Rugby, that's when. As Fly has tried to stress while you all who have jumped on the PRL bandwagon have tried your best to feign ignorance, the English and French are already guaranteed greater representation at every HC than each individual Pro12 nation. They always have been. It's only now that PR make an opportunistic choice to protest the validity of a standard which was set long ago that everything has kicked off.

What PR and all those who support their notion constantly fail to take into account is that the Pro12 caters for four nations, they (Premier Rugby) have the luxury of being able to stage a league exclusively to themselves. Scratch that, several tiers of leagues to themselves. None of the nations represented in the Pro12 have the rugby resources or population to sustain a professional model similar to the English or French, which is why we band together in the same league and are granted more slack to qualify and ensure representation in the Heino. It is the fairest system possible as things stand. Is this getting through to anyone?

Answer me this, why should we be deprived of our rights while you get to keep your own? Why should the English and French be guaranteed annual qualification while the Irish, Italians, Scottish and Welsh are not? Sorry old chaps but we won't stand idly and let Premier Rugby violate our rights under the pretence of being concerned with the current format. Not happening like it or not.

That is exactly what the PRL want. They want it to be a competition between leagues not unions. This probably comes from about when 3 unions decided to form their own league. Whether it happens or not is point of the negotiation. The Celtic and Italian unions may not back down at all. They may back done a little or them may collapse. The PRL aren't wrong to want it to be a competition between leagues. They're perfectly within their rights to want that. They're also perfectly within their rights to say they don't want to take part in it if it isn't between the Leagues.

Nobody has any fundamental rights to be included in all European competitions. They have the rights that were agreed up until 2014. They have none after this point until a new agreement is made (or not).

The PRL have not violated your rights because they haven't done ANYTHING related to the competition as it is agreed. All they have done is effect any European competition that they MAY be involved in following this point; nobody has ANY rights in this period so far because it doesn't exist. Except that any of the Unions have the TV rights to any games following this 2014.

There are only two issues here:

1) The RFU haven't give their European rights to anyone after 2014. Two bodies have wrongly (it seems) sold these rights to TV companies. Since the PRL has control over club TV rights they assumed when they reverted to RFU they were included in those given to the PRL. It seems they might be wrong. It'll be to see where the RFU land (and they can do whatever they want).

2) If the RFU fall on the side of the PRL (which I expect they will after some negotiation) then the collective control over all TV rights won't be given to a central body. If this results in more money to be split, what is the problem?

Interesting Knowsit, I might be wrongly attributing this to you, but when all this kicked off in May I suggested each group should sell their own TV rights and keep the money. That would get around the argument of 'who generates the most cash'. You agreed with me. This is almost exactly what the PRL did, except they're putting the money in the pot. Again, I may have wrongly attributed it to you.

by nathan Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:15 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:
nathan wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Maest
So you agree that the four Rabbo Nations gain an advantage from the HC as it is now

Eh? Where did he say that?

All people have done so far to answer for Premier Rugby is interpret things as they see fit, evading the real issue. The English and French already have the greatest individual representation in the HC. They're already at an advantage. They just want more advantage!

In your opinion of course, i can do the same thing..

The rabo teams already have an advantage, they don't want to lose it.

No, you can't. All you've done there is flatly state something you believe, or more likely hope, to be true. I explained my side through a long and detailed post earlier in the thread, which people thus far have chosen to ignore and avoid might I add. Where's your explanation?

Yes i can, regardless if you explain, it's still YOUR opinion. Nothing more. Your opinion isn't worth more than mine either.

by broadlandboy Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:22 pm

Do we want an elite European competition or a competition between 6nations?
A comparison that many wont like but Swansea & Cardiff are the best teams at
football in Wales but choose to play in the English league,so need to be at the top to qualify.

by Knowsit17 Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:32 pm

But nathan, you continue to decline to provide an explanation to support your opinion...

Thunor, respect for responding in full. But why do they want it between leagues? When Leinster won it they didn't do it for the Rabo, it was for themselves and, to a lesser extent, Ireland. They didn't stand up and wave the Rabo logo around did they?

The HC is first and foremost a competition between every club that participates, none of them band together on field! It's everyone for themselves, no matter who they're playing on the day. Did Ulster not reach the final by knocking out Munster and Edinburgh, fellow Rabo sides, along the way? How can it be between leagues if you're facing everyone, not just the members of the opposite league?

Also, you find that everyone has fundamental rights at present. The English and French solution would lead to only them being guaranteed places every year, in other words having the rights and priorites over everyone else. How is this fair?

You may slate the creation and concept of the Rabo but was there a better option for the unions involved? As the professional era has wound on it has become clear that this is the best way for them to survive. They don't have the resources of England therefore cannot sustain as many clubs and cannot stage an individual league for each individual union.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 2:46 pm

Did I slate the creation of the RABO? I didn't mean to and apologise for it coming across like that. The Celtic League and the current incarnation was/is the right thing for those unions to do IMO.

The reason they want it to be league based is because they think the current format benefits the RABO unions and the RABO didn't exist when the competition was first formed and it therefore isn't design as such.

Nobody has fundamental rights to be included once the current participation agreement comes to an end. If a new agreement was formed that didn't include the English it wouldn't be against anyones 'rights', same goes for Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French , Italians, and everyone else.

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 3:02 pm

nathan wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

We might have to take that with a pinch of salt. Less than a week after, Premiership Rugby gave notice, under the terms of the European Rugby Cup Accord, of their intention to withdraw from both the Heineken and the Amlin. Their notice was effective from June 1st, which predates the meeting.

There are plenty of legitimate questions about the legal status of Premiership Rugby's new contract but the ERC's new deal isn't necessarily as binding as they'd like to claim.

ERC say in their statement that it was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June. That was a meeting with PR and the RFU representatives as directors and present.

It is definitely looking like PRL are in the wrong here and it is a little more black and white rather than grey as you are suggesting.

THis is a good thing. There was a good chance that the PR deal with BT could have a negative effect on other unions taking away their prime competition and that is ethically wrong.

Fans want a big and brilliant European competition, some want it more than international rugby, the players and the clubs love competing in it, therefor IRB will want to maintain it.

it doesn't matter what the ERC say in a statement, we can't take either for granted.

Really...?

I would say that the ERC which is part of the IRB is a very trustworthy organisation to believe. I would be very very surprised if it was them who was telling porkies. Similarly ratified by the fact all the press seem to be siding against the PRL on this as do the RFU.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 3:21 pm

The ERC is not part of the IRB. All the ERC is a company that is owned in part by the 6 Unions and the PRL. It is sanctioned by the IRB to managed a multi-union competition (e.g. bannings, etc). That's it. Nor is the SANZAR part of the IRB or The PRO12 league. All these are owned by collections of Unions, which are part of the IRB. But it doesn't make them part of the IRB.

The press are making as much out of this as possible. Where they side doesn't mean much. The RFU haven't sided against the PRL. They've just reviewed their agreement and think it doesn't include the European rights. That doesn't mean they won't give the European rights to the PRL for after 2014.

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 3:46 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:The ERC is not part of the IRB. All the ERC is a company that is owned in part by the 6 Unions and the PRL. It is sanctioned by the IRB to managed a multi-union competition (e.g. bannings, etc). That's it. Nor is the SANZAR part of the IRB or The PRO12 league. All these are owned by collections of Unions, which are part of the IRB. But it doesn't make them part of the IRB.

The press are making as much out of this as possible. Where they side doesn't mean much. The RFU haven't sided against the PRL. They've just reviewed their agreement and think it doesn't include the European rights. That doesn't mean they won't give the European rights to the PRL for after 2014.

I did not say that the ERC is owned by the IRB, it is ratified, sanctioned and its decisions monitored by the IRB should a member request the IRB to act. The PRL do not own the ERC either.

From ESPN read below:

"Premiership Rugby's stance does not appear to be wavering under increasing pressure with a source saying: "What this is about is club competitions being run by clubs rather than the unions. 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."

That is the issue at hand. It is not the perspective that any of the unions who organise the IRB sanctioned competition run by ERC, that is what the PRL want.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 3:55 pm

The PRL own 1/12 of the ERC. An equal share as the RFU. You said the ERC was part of the IRB, it's not.

All cross border competitions are approved by the IRB. There's nothing inherently special in that. If a Franglo cup was formed it would be ratified by the IRB. It doesn't mean the IRB has a special interest in it; other than it applies IRB recommendations on sanctions, etc.

The RFU have already deemed that the English league should be run by the league. Why would it be any different for Europe? The IRFU, SRU and FIR all own their teams (or one in the FIR's case). The French union has given 4/5th of their votes to the French clubs, unless it is a matter of national interest. Also the RRW have a seat on the board. so it looks like most of the Unions think the teams themselves SHOULD have large role in organizing club events

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 3:56 pm

maestegmafia wrote: would say that the ERC which is part of the IRB is a very trustworthy organisation to believe.

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 4:08 pm

Apologies, it is not what i inherently meant, I conveyed myself incorrectly.

Look I think you are paddling up a very blind ally here mate, lets see how the week prevails. But I honestly think the PRL have caused themselves and English rugby a few big problems here. And the media, our source of all information certainly agree.

You may well say "that the press are making as much out of this as possible." That "Where they side doesn't mean much" but when they are all taking one line, that certainly looks a lot more like the truth than your personal rather hopeful suppositions, no offence intended.

The reason I mentioned the IRB as I have repeated time and again, is that they monitor all major competitions, they will not allow a minority to be subjected or chastised by another countries decision to try and make more money at other expense or to others detriment.

As the ERC said in their statement earlier:

"While awaiting further information regarding Premiership Rugby's proposed agreement with BT, the ERC Board, which met in Dublin today, believes that any such agreement would be in breach both of IRB regulations and of a mandate from the ERC Board itself."

"European club rugby's six participant Unions have granted the authority to sell broadcast rights to its tournaments solely to ERC."

by Pot Hale Sat 15 Sep 2012, 4:43 pm

The claim that the PRL clubs and LNR clubs have to fight more to get their European spots is a myth in my view.

The Top 14 clubs put primacy on their own league - I don't think anyone disputes that. The primary objective, therefore, for the top flight teams in T14 is to get one of the top 6 playoff places, in order to contest the finals. That's what they aim for.

The French decided that those top 6 playoff teams get European spots. They didnt have to fight any more for them - and the playoff is the principal reason for fighting for them.

In the Premiership, it's the four semi-finalists in the play-offs who get handed European spots. Again the primary objective for these teams is to get one of the playoff places. The Euro spot is a handy, secondary prize.

The fifth spot has nothing to do with the placing in the league. It goes to the winner of the Anglo-Welsh Cup - which could - in theory - be won by any of the 12 Premiership teams. Thus the 12th ranked team in the Premiership could win a Euro spot.

The only spot not linked to a playoff place or a cup, is the last place - that's the only place across the three leagues where the primary - and only - prize is a Euro spot.

The Pro 12 also has playoff places. They don't give Euro spots to these semi-finalists. They do it by another method.

I don't have the facts to hand but it would be interesting to see the relevant fortunes of English and French clubs in the H Cup once playoffs were introduced, and euro spots were linked to them.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:00 pm

Myth or not doesn't really matter. It's what is being claimed and reason for the change. Whether it's 'true' doesn't really matter. It all comes down to money.

The French and English want more. The want to keep what they're getting.

Maesteg, the media are claiming that the RFU is against the PRL. All the RFU have said is that they believe the rights to European TV sit with them from 2014. They have also said they will sit down with the clubs to try and make sure the best comes of this. You take that to mean their going kick the PRL's ass. I think it means they're going to get concessions from the PRL regarding the English national side and some league structure issues. None of us knwo what that means. It certainly doesn't mean the RFU have said NO to the BT deal.

The IRB have to ratify all multi-union competitions. They can stop one from forming if they believe it's not 'good for rugby'. They can't force a union to take part in a competition. They also can't force a union to give their TV rights to another body. If the RFU agreed to the BT deal then what? The IRB can't do squat and nor should they. The fact the PRL and French clubs are talking about bringing more European unions means they're much more likely to back them than go against them.

I still maintain the only thing the PRL have done 'wrong' is the selling of RFU TV rights. I'll say it again, just in case it hasn't sunk in yet, exactly the same as the ERC have done.

by Knowsit17 Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:05 pm

Thunor, in retrospect I didn't mean to imply that anyone has a fundamental right to qualify automatically. Of course nobody does, I used entirely the wrong wording. But if so you'll agree that the English/French proposal of cutting the Rabo qualification pool down to the top 6 cannot be considered fair to all parties as it just means the English/French clubs continue to enjoy guaranteed representation while the Pro12 unions would not. Why should the ERC cave to the Jeff and T14's demands when it clearly goes against the "fairness" they claim to be advocating?

I don't recall, I may or may not have agreed with you on the issue of broadcasting rights. Of course in principle every union has the right to manage its own TV deals (unless PR are lying and they did indeed sign off their rights to the ERC). However, one does not have the right to give exclusive rights when other parties may be involved, which is exactly the case.

Say some compromise is reached and the English and French remain in the HC, what would happen then? None of the other unions have consented to be aired exclusively by BT so what next? The deal could well become impossible to work and PR would come in for heavy fire, with an outside chance of fines and lawsuits due to signing big deals behind everyone else's backs. It's not really something they can emerge from unscathed.

And bear in mind there's no guarantee PR intend to leave the Heino in the long run and certainly no way of being certain they or the French intend to form an alternative league/cup. Their notice to leave is widely regarded as tough negotiating for the time being, if their bluff is called we can't say whether they'd actually up and leave or whether they'd concede defeat and continue. The HC is surely too rich and important a competition for them to just wave it away and whether it can be replaced is highly debatable, I personally doubt they could invent something just as good.

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:07 pm

Ian Richie said:

"The RFU will continue to liaise with all stakeholders, in order to help reach a conclusion which benefits all. 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.”

I take that to mean that they definitely do not agree with what the PRL have done. And it is this sentence "While the RFU has not given consent to Premiership Rugby", that persuades me so.

Yes they say they want to keep working with PRL, more importantly they wish very much so to be involved with all parties involved, that means the other Unions and the ERC.

With regards to your closing repetition of, "I still maintain the only thing the PRL have done 'wrong' is the selling of RFU TV rights. I'll say it again, just in case it hasn't sunk in yet, exactly the same as the ERC have done."

You are wrong, we all keep telling you this as ERC have said that members had agreed, that means ALL UNIONS and their Clubs/Regions/Provinces professional representation on the board agreed. That Includes the PRL. Peter Wheeler was present and agreed.

To decry that you are saying that the ERC are lying in their press statement. Well the RFU certainly do not seem to think that the ERC are doing anything wrong, as we keep telling you.

by BigTrevsbigmac Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:18 pm

As has been said before, the PRL state,

"We also note ERC's reference to its board meeting on 6 June, 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC board meeting. In any case, any such deal could not have included matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs.
"ERC's suggestion that Premiership Rugby may be in breach of IRB regulations is wrong."

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:19 pm

maestegmafia wrote:Ian Richie said:

"The RFU will continue to liaise with all stakeholders, in order to help reach a conclusion which benefits all. 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.”

I take that to mean that they definitely do not agree with what the PRL have done. And it is this sentence "While the RFU has not given consent to Premiership Rugby", that persuades me so.

Yes they say they want to keep working with PRL, more importantly they wish very much so to be involved with all parties involved, that means the other Unions and the ERC.

Why would them saying that their agreement with the PRL doesn't include the European rights mean they don't agreed with it? It just means the RFU must sanction it and they haven't yet. They're going to play this to get the most they can out of the PRL. Doesn't mean it won't happen.

With regards to your closing repetition of, "I still maintain the only thing the PRL have done 'wrong' is the selling of RFU TV rights. I'll say it again, just in case it hasn't sunk in yet, exactly the same as the ERC have done."

You are wrong, we all keep telling you this as ERC have said that members had agreed, that means ALL UNIONS and their Clubs/Regions/Provinces professional representation on the board agreed. That Includes the PRL. Peter Wheeler was present and agreed.

To decry that you are saying that the ERC are lying in their press statement. Well the RFU certainly do not seem to think that the ERC are doing anything wrong, as we keep telling you.

The ERC board that met on 6th June DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SELL RFU TV RIGHTS FOR EUROPE AFTER 2014. The participation agreement that runs out in 2014 is what gives the ERC that power. As stated it runs out in 2014. The single RFU member on the board was acting as a board member of the ERC on behalf of the RFU. The RFU board will be the one to decide where their European rights will go in 2014.

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:33 pm

HT you are seeing what you want to see and not what the facts are.

I give up trying to discuss this with you.

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:37 pm

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:As has been said before, the PRL state,

"We also note ERC's reference to its board meeting on 6 June, 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC board meeting. In any case, any such deal could not have included matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs.
"ERC's suggestion that Premiership Rugby may be in breach of IRB regulations is wrong."

Just read all the posts above...!

Then cut off your nose to spite our face with your mate...!

by BigTrevsbigmac Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:37 pm

maestegmafia wrote:HT you are seeing what you want to see and not what the facts are.

I give up trying to discuss this with you.

I'm afraid I see the exact opposite. Hammer is presenting the facts.

by maestegmafia Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:39 pm

You can read the FACTS all over the news, we have shown them to you two all over this thread. BUT YOU refuse to believe them.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:39 pm

Maesteg, just so we're clear. You believe the ERC has the ability to just extend the participation agreement from a board meeting, even though there has been notice given that the Participation agreement will not be renewed?

In fact if the participation agreement as been extended so the ERC can sell the TV rights...what's the point of next week's meeting?

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:40 pm

Can you lay out the facts without surrounding them with opinion?

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:52 pm

Fact 1: The French and English gave notice on the 1st June that they will not just renew the participation agreement that was done in 2007 and runs out in 2014.

Fact 2: The RFU have granted the PRL control over the TV rights for the English League.

Fact 3: The PRL have done a deal with BT, giving them Exclusive rights to the Premiership.

Fact 4: The RFU gave the control of the TV rights to ERC as part of the Participation agreement; which runs out in 2012.

Fact 5: Once the current participation agreement finishes the control of TV rights returns to the individual unions.

Fact 6: The PRL have done a deal with BT for any of their European games, which the RFU claim they have not given the PRL control of.

Fact 7: The ERC have done a deal with Sky for a period after the current participation agreement has finished.

Fact 8: Neither party has control of RFU European TV rights post-2014 as things stand.

Fact 9: The only power the ERC will continue to have following 2014 will be dependant on a new Participation Agreement. Negotiations on what the new agreement will included have not even started yet.

If any one else has any facts we can add them on. If anyone disputes any of these facts please feel free.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 5:55 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Fact 1: The French and English gave notice on the 1st June that they will not just renew the participation agreement that was done in 2007 and runs out in 2014.

Fact 2: The RFU have granted the PRL control over the TV rights for the English League.

Fact 3: The PRL have done a deal with BT, giving them Exclusive rights to the Premiership.

Fact 4: The RFU gave the control of the TV rights to ERC as part of the Participation agreement; which runs out in 2012.

Fact 5: Once the current participation agreement finishes the control of TV rights returns to the individual unions.

Fact 6: The PRL have done a deal with BT for any of their European games, which the RFU claim they have not given the PRL control of.

Fact 7: The ERC have done a deal with Sky for a period after the current participation agreement has finished.

Fact 8: Neither party has control of RFU European TV rights post-2014 as things stand.

Fact 9: The only power the ERC will continue to have following 2014 will be dependant on a new Participation Agreement. Negotiations on what the new agreement will included have not even started yet.

Fact 10: The PRL have stated that the BT money for the English European games will go in a central pot to be shared out

If any one else has any facts we can add them on. If anyone disputes any of these facts please feel free.

by BigTrevsbigmac Sat 15 Sep 2012, 6:27 pm

It is very difficult to argue with facts. Wink

by Pot Hale Sat 15 Sep 2012, 6:32 pm

Fact 11. The English clubs incorrectly claim they have to fight more for European spots because they award them on a top 6 basis.

Fact 12. The PRL clubs incorrectly claim that the H Cup is based on league performance and that Pro 12 clubs get automatic qualification unfairly.

Fact 13. The PRL incorrectly claims that the Pro 12 teams have refused to negoatiate or make changes

by Pot Hale Sat 15 Sep 2012, 6:37 pm

Fact 14. The PRL claims all of its clubs have to fight a relegation battle every season.

Fact 15. The LNR claim correctly that their clubs have to play more matches than the PRO 12 teams.

Fact 16. The T14 teams prioritise T14 over the H Cup and use weakened teams in the competition.

Fact 17. The T14 teams rest and rotate players in the same way that Irish provinces do.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 6:45 pm

Pot Hale wrote:Fact 11. The English clubs incorrectly claim they have to fight more for European spots because they award them on a top 6 basis.

Not really a clear fact. Whether it's correct or not is opinion.

Fact 12. The PRL clubs incorrectly claim that the H Cup is based on league performance and that Pro 12 clubs get automatic qualification unfairly.

No, they say it should be in their opinion.

Fact 13. The PRL incorrectly claims that the Pro 12 teams have refused to negoatiate or make changes

Actually the French claimed that the 'ERC' in generally, including the French union, refused to negotiate initially, hence the notice of withdraw to force a negotiation

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 6:49 pm

Pot Hale wrote:Fact 14. The PRL claims all of its clubs have to fight a relegation battle every season.

Do they?

Fact 15. The LNR claim correctly that their clubs have to play more matches than the PRO 12 teams.

Yes

Fact 16. The T14 teams prioritise T14 over the H Cup and use weakened teams in the competition.

Not always true.

Fact 17. The T14 teams rest and rotate players in the same way that Irish provinces do.

No they don't. The IRFU enforce rest periods. The French union doesn't. Whether they rotate/rest or not is a matter of debate and depends on defintions and other criteria.

Most of your 'Facts' are heavily shrouded by opinions. A lot are also irrelevant to the current situation other than as excuses for this situation. I tried to collate the facts regarding the current path we're on. If we just put all facts in we'll run out of space.

by Pot Hale Sat 15 Sep 2012, 6:53 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:Fact 11. The English clubs incorrectly claim they have to fight more for European spots because they award them on a top 6 basis.

Not really a clear fact. Whether it's correct or not is opinion.

.

Fact 12. The PRL clubs incorrectly claim that the H Cup is based on league performance and that Pro 12 clubs get automatic qualification unfairly.

No, they say it should be in their opinion.

Fact 13. The PRL incorrectly claims that the Pro 12 teams have refused to negoatiate or make changes

Actually the French claimed that the 'ERC' in generally, including the French union, refused to negotiate initially, hence the notice of withdraw to force a negotiation

The PRL claim they award spots on a top 6 basis. But they don't.

The PRL and/or club owners specified the PRO 12 clubs and specifically that Irish, Welsh Italian and Scots want things to stay as they are.

by Pot Hale Sat 15 Sep 2012, 6:56 pm

I suspect that player game time, foreign player quotas and weakened/second strong sides are going to come up in discussions next week.

The key point the French want to achieve would appear to be the timing of the comp. Will having 20 teams allow it to be run on a shorter basis?

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 7:00 pm

Well, they all refused to negotiate originally so it's true isn't it?

Maybe we should add "reference" to this game?

It depends on how the 20 teams are arranged. 4 pools of 5 is 2 weeks longer. 5 pools of 4 would be the same. Can't see an easy way of making it shorter with 20 teams

by allyt2k Sat 15 Sep 2012, 7:01 pm

FACT 18.

BT want to kick the Heineken Cup into the long grass and start a DAZZLING new tournament.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 7:24 pm

allyt2k wrote:FACT 18. BT want to kick the Heineken Cup into the long grass and start a DAZZLING new tournament.

Which, in all likelihood, will be sponsored by Heineken (or by BT for more) and will consist of pool stages followed by knock-out finals; played by the main unions in Europe

tomato

by allyt2k Sat 15 Sep 2012, 7:34 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
allyt2k wrote:FACT 18. BT want to kick the Heineken Cup into the long grass and start a DAZZLING new tournament.

Which, in all likelihood, will be sponsored by Heineken (or by BT for more) and will consist of pool stages followed by knock-out finals; played by the main unions in Europe

Naughty, you haven't stated a FACT only your opinion that Heineken will sponsor a new tournament, that it will consist of pools and that main unions will take part.

You broke the rules of your own game Very Happy

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 7:34 pm

But I didn't put FACT XX in front.

Ha

boxing

by Feckless Rogue Sat 15 Sep 2012, 8:37 pm

The HC is dazzling. It's the best rugby competition in the world. That's my opinion. But it's an opinion shared by the majority of European rugby pundits and more importantly, the fans.

Let's all just hope it isn't torn down by some bitter, greedy private club owners.

by doctor_grey Sat 15 Sep 2012, 9:39 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote:The HC is dazzling. It's the best rugby competition in the world. That's my opinion. But it's an opinion shared by the majority of European rugby pundits and more importantly, the fans.

Let's all just hope it isn't torn down by some bitter, greedy private club owners.

Feckless, I absolutely agree, the Heineken Cup a great competition, and the highlight of the club/team season. No doubts. Too important to too many people (like us) to be allowed to go down the rat hole.

But I wouldn't limit the potential damage to the club owners. There are many hands in this pot. It is equally bad to tear something down by pushing for radical change as it is to resist any change at all. I don't know where the truth lies. Nor do I believe anyone is guiltless. All I know is two thirds of the participating leagues, representing one-third of participating nations are not happy. I would think all hands should have done a better job of balancing the best interests to avoid the nasty brinksmanship we have now. Too polarizing, for one thing.

by HammerofThunor Sat 15 Sep 2012, 9:46 pm

Let's also hope that it isn't destroyed by greedy, power hungry unions as well.

by Guest Sun 16 Sep 2012, 8:10 am

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.

At the end of this the AP league will have 50% more cash from the BT deal than from Sky and the Euro slice can be agreed or not. Of course it will probably be taken unless this alledged Sky deal ups the money. There has been no detail from the ERC mngt company, either to keep powder dry or has simply not been thrashed out yet.

One thing is for certain (opinion) the European part of the fixture season will change the AP &T14 backed down in 2007. That does not appear to be the case this time round.

The speculation will be sorted next week...maybe.

by BigTrevsbigmac Sun 16 Sep 2012, 8:24 am

ESPN yesterday,

English and French clubs have already served notice to the ERC regarding the existing tournament accord that expires in 2014. And McCafferty added: "The context everyone has to remember is that there is no European competition after 2014 for anyone because notice has been served on the accord so there is a vacuum in 2014.

"We are trying to decide - everyone is trying to decide - what should replace it. Whichever way, there will be new competitions after 2014. We've just got to decide on the format of those and come to an agreement or not on how that should all work. That's what negotiations are all starting on now.

"From within the financial terms of the (BT Vision) deal, it covers our domestic rugby but also covers to right to our games in any future European competition, so there are going to be values attached to that. Those values we are not keeping to ourselves.

"Those values we are putting into a European pot which will presumably also include whatever future deals the French clubs do. That pot will then be a better pot for people in Europe. Rather than people arguing over how to divide up the current cake, we have made the cake bigger and hopefully that will facilitate a financial conversation that will be interesting for everyone."

McCafferty has also revealed that he is keen on pursuing a new structure for European rugby that includes three tiers. The top two is understood to feature the current teams in the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup while a third would include sides from emerging nations such as Russia and Portugal. And he reiterated Premiership Rugby's long-standing view that qualification for the top two competitions should be merit-based.

"Broadly speaking, we think the new versions of those from 2014 will be 20 teams in each and qualification for that top level will be based on merit and not country allocation," he said. "With all due respect to everyone, there will be clubs from France and clubs from England who will be in the second tournament.

"Our clubs accept that if they have not qualified for the top tournament they will have to play in the second competition. In terms of teams from the RaboDirect PRO12, that is equally applicable.

"Our preference, or the proposals we have made, is that it would be the top six from each of the three leagues (Premiership, French Top 14 and RaboDirect), plus the two winners of the competitions from the previous season. You can see on all fronts it's a merit-based qualification, which is not the case currently."

© ESPN EMEA Ltd

by maestegmafia Sun 16 Sep 2012, 11:59 am

McCafferty knows that the PRL are entering this meeting on tuesday with an offer of a deal on the speculation that it is legal.

The RFU and ERC do not think it is.

Above Trevs link misses this part of McCafferties speech that is covered in the Ackford article in The Telegraph.

“I completely accept that people don’t understand what we’ve done in Europe,” said Mark McCafferty, Premiership Rugby’s chief executive. “But we haven’t been in a position where we can share that. Once they do, I’m hopeful that they’ll be enthusiastic. If they’re not, then we will have to start to look at what the alternatives are. We’ve had one or two thoughts on that because you don’t go in without a plan B, but that’s not our focus at the moment.”

This deal might well be the best thing for rugby since Erica Roe, but the underhand and cloaked manor of the PRL deal and some of the statements by both McCafferty of the PRL and Watson of BT Vision will put on edge the demeanour of the FFR, IRFU, FIR, SRU, WRU and all their counterpart professional club representation.

I am happy that should the PRL want to take top flight rugby away from Scotland and Italy by minimising their ability to compete at European top table, the IRB will intervene and prevent this.

It will be interesting to see how this prevails next week.

I know we the rugby fans want the same thing, a great rugby competition for Europe. The better financing of that would be good, if it is for all not one.

England and France have a much more expensive brand of club rugby than the rest of Europe. That is their decision. But, it is not our responsibility to comply to their model, our bargain is our want to compete. To do that play fields have to be level. I personally see that conceding some automatic qualification by the Rp12 teams as a good thing, but on a national level not as one competition baskets together. It would be wrong to take all European rugby from a nation that competes well annually.

There is also a huge downside to the BT Vision Deal is based on the concept of owning a huge amount of rugby. Should they do that fans need to be able to access that rugby. BSkyB have the market as things stand. Most rugby fans will have to change from sky to BT.

BT want to buy rugby to attain a larger share in the market of customers sky currently have, that buy their three main services, TV, internet and telecommunications. Owning sports right is BT Visions method of cornering a market and making it their own.

When you look at BTs speculative business plan, it certainly makes me think that this has every likelihood of being another deal like the ITVDigital and Premiership Football.

That is very very worrying.

by HammerofThunor Sun 16 Sep 2012, 12:24 pm

European rugby will not be taken from anyone. IF the top tier changes at all, the teams that leave will be in the second tier with capabilities to enter the top tier again on merit, by either winning the 2nd tier cup or doing well in their league system.

What BT are doing now is no different to what Sky did 15 years ago. Sky already completely own SANZAR rugby. We don't know exactly how BT are going to display their sports. If it's on a subscription channel available to anyone with free-view it massively opens up accessibility compared with Sky. If it's on one channel that would be much better (currently Sky show rugby on multiple channels meaning you have to buy all of them to have access to all the rugby. Will BT Sport be available as a sports channel on sky, much like ESPN? Without knowing the details how can we even come close to judging the merits?

I'm not going to get into any repeats of arguments we've already had but from the very start you've been twisting this as much as possible in the negative light, extrapolating the worst case scenario and acting as though it has happened.

As things stand European rugby doesn't exist post-2014. Except for LV cup and B&I Cup. That's it. We'll see what the outcomes are following the first round of negotiations. At least the French have said they want it done by Christmas.

by maestegmafia Sun 16 Sep 2012, 12:44 pm

Here is an excellent article looking at the BT Vision deal with objectivity instead of Red Rose tinted glasses...!

Matt Scott's BLOG from The Telegraph wrote:

No sooner had BT and Premiership Rugby announced a deal for the rights to English clubs’ participation in the elite European competition from 2014-15 on Wednesday than Sky reacted decisively, extending its deal for the Heineken Cup with or without the English for another four years.
The swiftness of the satellite broadcaster’s response tells us all we need to know about the threat it faces with BT’s presence in a marketplace it has made its own over the past 20 years.
Rivals have come and gone. Remember ITV Digital? Football League clubs do, but for all the wrong reasons: the channel overpromised in bidding to televise matches that not enough viewers were interested in. Ultimately it collapsed without paying up.
Then there was Setanta, a solid Irish business that expanded its UK start-up and seemed to have strong traction when it bought Premier League matches as part of a portfolio including England and FA Cup matches, the Indian Premier League and much more. But at its peak it had only 1.2million subscribers, not enough to sustain a £600million rights book.
Setanta collapsed into administration. Then came ESPN, which is two years in to a three-season deal for the Premier League rights. But though Disney is its guarantor as ultimate parent company, and though it has a US sister organisation that is the biggest player in the most sophisticated sports-media market in the world, it has relinquished its hold on top-flight English football from next season.
RELATED ARTICLES
BT Vision puts Cup future in doubt 13 Sep 2012
Eastmond's star turn catches the eye 09 Sep 2012
RFU enters row over TV rights deal 13 Sep 2012
TMO's extra powers are ripping the soul out of the game 08 Sep 2012
I'm not new Robinson 13 Sep 2012
Northampton 24 Exeter 21 09 Sep 2012
The reason? BT, the one-time monopoly telecoms utility which sees sports rights as the key to developing a modern consumer-facing business. It made its presence felt in the Premier League’s rights auction earlier this year by paying £246 million a year for 38 of its highest-profile matches from next season.
It was disappointed, after leading the bidding in all rounds but the last, not to have won more. Sky’s fears are well founded.
Indeed in 2010-11, the most recent year for which its accounts are publicly available, Sky generated £272 million of free cash after all its operating, investing and financing activities. By contrast, BT makes £2.5 billion of it.
Sky has 10.6 million customers, and many of them buy not only their televised sports content but also their telephone and broadband access — traditional BT territory — from Sky. These are known as “triple-play” customers, and they are the ones BT wants to woo.
Marc Watson, the man charged with building this new strand of BT’s business as chief executive of BT Vision, told Telegraph Sport: “We see the Premier League as the key to a bigger [customer] base.
“I really think we will grow the UK business with more customers and more products. We will be a significant triple-play provider: you will be able to have a bundle of tv, broadband and calls.
“Virgin Media, about 70 per cent of their customers are triple play. Sky, about 40 per cent and growing. We’re about 12 per cent but once we get [Premier League football] on the bundle there is a lot of potential for growth.”
Watson has years of experience in the sports-rights market and has been a major player in delivering Premier League matches to broadcasters. Now his role is to build a multi-sports channel capable of attracting viewers who will also buy up BT’s broadband and telephone offerings.
This is area in which BT has the power to succeed where ITV Digital, Setanta and, to an extent, ESPN have failed before it. It is not a one-trick sports-broadcasting pony but a behemoth prepared to pay big to build a business complementing its core offering of communications. Faced with this opposition, Sky is fighting hard to stop the sky falling in.

by Pot Hale Sun 16 Sep 2012, 12:46 pm

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?

by Sponsored content