H-cup, changes. SRU and FIR likley losers?

First topic message reminder :

The best summary of the H-cup debate, I have found is here.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0915/1224324046581.html

The H-cup Pot seams to be split into two seperate payments to the unions, one for performance (after group stages) and one for taking part.

I don't see the performance payments changing,

However the participation split, is the one the French and English wish changed. Currently

"The would leave about €40 million or thereabouts in basic distributions, of which the IRFU, along with their Welsh and Scottish counterparts, receive about 13 per cent. This equates to approximately €5.2 million each. The Italians are understood to receive marginally less, around 11-12 per cent , equating to roughly €4.4 million.

Roughly half of the basic distribution is divided between the French and English, amounting to approximately €10 million each. On the premise that might is right, as well as having 12 and 14 clubs to share, the English and French will argue for a bigger basic share."


breaking this pot down is appears that currently each Union recieves:
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

The way I see it the French and English, will be wanting this changed from a Union based divide to a League based divide (6 teams from each league + H-cup and Almin winners). Currently the Pro 12 unions recieve 50% for the participation pot, I believe that the French and English will want to change this to approx 33.33%, whereby it is split (will change slightly to have H-cup and Almin winners league gain some extra);

RFU = 33%
FRU = 33%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 33% (and leave it to the Unions to decide how to divide this between themselves)

I believe the Pro 12 will argue for a divide of 8 Pro 12 teams (some or all of qualification based on league position) 6 English and 6 French. For this the split would be;

FRU = 30%
RFU = 30%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 40% (and leave it to the Unions to decide how to divide this between themselves)

I believe the second is what will be agreed as it see's the French and English share increase from 25% to 30% and a reduction in number of Pro 12 teams and tougher qualification, plus since with less teams a reduction in payments.

I believe this is what the French were wishing to discuss and threaten pulling out over (and nothing to do with TV deals), and the English TV deal has thrown a complete spanner in the works, for everyone involved and added a new dimension to the talks.

Personally I see that the 4 Pro 12 unions will guarentee one entry per union, with the other 4 being League based.
This means that each H-cup place will be worth 5% of the participation pot.
Meaning the split would be

IRFU and WRU would get between 5-20% each year (from 13% prevously)
SRU and FIR between 5-10% each year (from 13% and 11% prevously)

Think the WRU and IFRU will manage to get around the same money as prevously, maybe even slightly more some years, but will generally average the same.
French and English will both increase by 5%,
The losers are the SRU and FIR who will lose out by 3%-8% each year depending if they get one or two teams in the H-cup.

If all 8 H-cups places are league based it will see.

IRFU and WRU would get between 5-20% each year (from 13% prevously)
SRU and FIR between 0-10% each year (from 13% and 11% prevously)

The losers are (even more so) the SRU and FIR who will lose out by 3%-13% each year depending if they get one or two teams in the H-cup, and recieve 0% if no teams get in top 8.

I think this is the likely outcome of how the H-cup will be run. The TV rights part I have no idea yet and will treat it as a seperate issue.

What are your thoughts would the above be an agreeable solution to you? (TV rights can be discussed on a seperate thread).

There are problems,

Ok we have mentioned the SRU having two teams both get automatic entry, and an equal slice as the IRFU and WRU.

but Italy could be a bigger problem, They two teams both get automatic entry, and a slightly smaller slice than SRU/IRFU/WRU.

but they also enter club teams into the Almin, something the ERC have mentioned before, that needs corrected. (SRU don't enter club teams in, nor any other Union in Pro 12).

think Italy will have to accept that they can only enter 2 teams into European competation, rather than the 6 they currently do.

This is a good point. It should also be noted that it was originally the case that we (Scotland) had 3 entries in Europe: 2 in H-Cup and one in Amlin (Parker). Since the demise of the Borders the competitive element of Scottish qualification has been removed.

Its not so much that both our teams are guaranteed entry - they just happen to be the only two left!

Should our representation be reduced to one then qualification may become perpetual as success and finance becomes entrenched in one team or the other. I can't see how that improves the current situation?

This is fundamental to the misapprehension peddled by the PRL. The Rabo12 is an amalgamation of countries, not qualification from a national league.

To put it in terms they (PRL) understand if there were to be a single, Europe-wide league from which qualification is drawn - they might then find they have fewer than 6 entrants under such a scenario

Kingshu wrote:There are problems,

Ok we have mentioned the SRU having two teams both get automatic entry, and an equal slice as the IRFU and WRU.

but Italy could be a bigger problem, They two teams both get automatic entry, and a slightly smaller slice than SRU/IRFU/WRU.

but they also enter club teams into the Almin, something the ERC have mentioned before, that needs corrected. (SRU don't enter club teams in, nor any other Union in Pro 12).

think Italy will have to accept that they can only enter 2 teams into European competation, rather than the 6 they currently do.

If the tertiary competition comes into being, there'd be space for the Italian 2nd tier in that and probably at about the right standard. Bucharest seem to be a little better than the Italians, the Spanish champions about the same or perhaps a little worse. Who knows about any newcomers? Biggest problem might be to get the Georgians and Russians in the same competition.

I assume the Franglo proposals won't pay the third tier much more than travel costs, and I don't know whether the S10 is subsidised by their Union out of their ERC income. It's important that the Italians aren't worse off financially in the end and hopefully better off - actually, that goes for all parties.

dont the Italians have a domestic competition where the likes of calvisano etc play each other?

whocares wrote:dont the Italians have a domestic competition where the likes of calvisano etc play each other?

Yes. The best of those clubs are entered into the ACC. Would this continue if the 2 PRO12 Italian clubs were in their as well? I think Viadana and several others are supposed to be feeder clubs for Zebre (they were for Aironi) but Treviso is a superclub. Maybe the Italians should be in the 3rd tier, if one of them wins then they'll upgrade into the ACC. If not then should they be there?

Big, one of the points over the ACC is that there are too many 'easy' games. People generally aren't interested in non-competitive games. If a game is likely to be a walkover/thrashing then it's a turnoff. The idea of taking some of the 'weaker' teams out of the HEC and putting them in the ACC, taking some of the weaker sides out of the ACC and putting them in a 3rd tier with newer teams (Russia, etc) would be to reduce the 'boring' games.

I would hope a system would be in place that if the Russians (for example) kept winning the 3rd tier over and over a guaranteed spot in the ACC would be given to them based on winning their league. Same for the Georgians, domestic Italians, etc.

well the ACC is not a domestic competition by definition... thought Italians would have their own national competition to start with. even the russians have a semi pro league I heard.

whocares wrote:dont the Italians have a domestic competition where the likes of calvisano etc play each other?

Yeah super 10, it been chopped an dchanged in recent years, with clubs coming together to form Aironi, and they it being disbanded.
some other clubs have agreed to form another region, etc etc its a bit of a mess to be honest.
Don't know about standard but would guess its about or lower than Welsh Prem level.

Don't know why the Italians should get super 10 clubs into Europe even at 3rd tier, the WRU don't and the SRU don't.

It should be if you go regional, Provinicial, your domestic clubs are excluded from Europe, all Rabo teams.

What happens if a feeder team, wins a cup and moves up a level, you could have things like Newport RFC V Newport Gwent Dragons, Cardiff RFC V Cardiff Blues, Ballymena V Ulster. If you have feeder clubs they should not be in the same competation.

SRU and WRU league teams play in a cup with Provinical 'A' teams, Terviso and Zebre should be looking for the same, (to much travel for BandI cup) but they could maybe look at playing against Top 14 'A' teams? or push for a Rabo 'A' team league?

But no super 10 team should be in a European comp anymore.

I haven't entered this debate before but have had some discussions offline with friends and random supporters of other clubs, so here are some of my thoughts.

I remain to be convinced that there is any other reason for the PRL to be taking the line they are taking other than money - specifically more money for the PRL clubs.

England v France competition? How many tries were scored last year in the Top14 playoffs? Was it 1 or 2? I can't remember but it was abysmally low. Premiership rugby was described on Sky last season during one of their discussions on the failure of English clubs to progress into the KO stages of last season's HEC as "train-crash rugby". Is that really what the fans (us) want to see?

Last year's quarter-final between Sarries and Clermont had the lowest HEC quarter final attendance for 6 years.

IMO, English clubs have failed to progress PARTICULARLY in improving provision for fans. I live near Bath so I know all about the travails of their attempts to sort out the Rec. But, go back a few years, Limerick City Council realised that Munster Rugby was important for the local economy and they sat down with the Club and worked out how best to redevelop Thomond. It was done quickly and well.

Is there the same will on the part of English clubs and the towns / cities in which they are located to develop rugby as part of the towns' / cities' economic infrastructure?

Months ago I heard that Mark McCafferty was looking to renegotiate the percentage of the gates in HEC matches that went to the away teams. This would obviously favour the premiership teams as most of them have small capacity grounds (compared to the French and Irish). This is being shown up in the projections for the RWC2015 where it looks as if a significant number of games will be played on football pitches. Personally I think it is a disgrace that the richest (am I right in this?) Union in the world has to go cap in hand to another sport to provide venues for the sport's premier showcase competition.

Premiership rugby needs to put its own house in order
1. Sort out the facilities for fans - Exeter, one of the new boys in the Premiership have shown it can be done - not huge capacity admittedly, but at least a decent stadium.
2. Stop thinking of money, money, money for the big boys only. Rugby in Europe will be better if the focus is on development of the game over the whole continent.
3. Stop looking at how soccer has organised itself (clubs running the main club competition) That leads to the mindset where the only thing of importance os the big clubs, and hence to point 2 above.
4. Keep the current format of the ERC (not the competition, the actual ERC body) only in this way will the developing nations be considered. As and when it is appropriate, broaden the ERC to include Russia, Georgia and Romania (that may be now, I am not sure, but it will be soon).
5. There are three years before RWC2015 - the necessary staia could be redeveloped before this, IF (and it is a very big IF) PRL and its constituent clubs had the will to do it.
5. No country's teams should be excluded because they haven't got enough clout. That's what PRL, at a club level, tried to do with London Welsh and look where that got them. Not only the loss of the court case, but contempt from the fans.
6. Remember the fans. We may not be your biggest paymasters - tv and sponsors fulfil that role. But if the stadia are empty, the tv companies and the sponsors will soon desert you.

KiaRose wrote:I Is there the same will on the part of English clubs and the towns / cities in which they are located to develop rugby as part of the towns' / cities' economic infrastructure?

Living spitting distance from Quins training ground, i'd say yes to that one. They run deveoplment camps all over the place around the SW homes counties and beyond, and if by the amount of academy players i've bumped into on the tiles is any indication, they do recruit a lot of potentials from these camps.

I know Sarries do a lot of N. London camps as well, and make an active point of having their stars turn up.

AlastairW wrote:

KiaRose wrote:I Is there the same will on the part of English clubs and the towns / cities in which they are located to develop rugby as part of the towns' / cities' economic infrastructure?

Living spitting distance from Quins training ground, i'd say yes to that one. They run deveoplment camps all over the place around the SW homes counties and beyond, and if by the amount of academy players i've bumped into on the tiles is any indication, they do recruit a lot of potentials from these camps.

I know Sarries do a lot of N. London camps as well, and make an active point of having their stars turn up.

Alastair

I was referring to the Thomond Park model of development where the local council sat down with the club so that the stadium could be developed - in this case the council recognised the importance of the Rugby Club to the city's economic well-being. There are various estimates of the income derived by Limerick city from a HEC KO match - these estimates are in millions of euro (varying between 2 and 4m euros a game)

Rugby development camps would come under a heading social benefit rather than (strictly speaking) economic benefit. As such they are a valuable activity for developing communities, or to use current sociology-speak - increasing social capital. This is difficult to measure in £sterling and is the sort of thing which is noticed when it goes rather than when it is active. I was addressing the £sd benefit of many supporters travelling to a match and spending money in the town before and after the game with maybe hotel accommodation as well - hence the high estimates of value to Limerick.

Kia,

Your points 1) & 5) contradict each other

Exeter did indeed sort out their facilities for fans with a decent stadium as required for promotion London Welsh didn't.
In respect of this you are confusing the PRL & the RFU.

I disagree with most of what you have written but it has all been laid down on this thread before.

Lets be fair here, I don't think we can have a go at the RFU for using football stadiums for a world cup.

If they developed the Rugby grounds to the size required, it would firstly be costly, and secondly most teams would eb left with stadiums they couldn't fill (London Irish, Edinburgh) and we'd be complaining that these grounds had lost their soul, because of the WRC.

The football stadiums are there ready to be used.

personally I have to admit I respect the way Thomond was build,

t was thought that Thomond Park would be renamed in a sponsorship deal, following its redevelopment. However, it was confirmed in February 2008 that the name Thomond Park would remain the same, with naming rights being sold for the individual stands instead.

Think it was loans form the IRFU that mosty funded it, plus I don't know what they got from government, and Limerick city.

But it does have a majour inpact on the town.

Ulster games can be missed in Belfast, just not the same atmostphere in the city, a big stadium in a small city seams to be best.

Swansea seams like it could be good if they got a home Q-final. Llanali as well.

kia,
I think you're being a bit harsh comparing Thomond to the Wreck - one is a shining beacon, probably the best in Pro12, the other is the precise opposite, probably the worst in AP.

Generally I would say that local councils don't give much assistance to professional rugby clubs, although Coventry and Doncaster are two that have. Saints have been stymied in their plans to develop Franklin's Gardens by the council, I think because of the supermarket development that would fund it. Bath's lack of development is infamous, but I think it's the Charity Commision which hinders that mostly. Exeter had no positive support from the city council.

Both Pro12 and AP have teams that share football (or other sports) stadia and I should think the average capacity is about equal (discounting the full capacity of Murrayfield and ignoring the various Big Games). No AP stadia has a capacity less than 10,000 and greater capacity is only needed if the fans are there to fill the space regularly. Apart from the Wreck all AP stadia are covered, which is sensible for the punter's comfort in the winter.

I think you're being very harsh criticising RWC 2015 for not using rugby stadia exclusively. They're aiming for an average crowd in excess of 60,000 - they have to, bums on seats is the only way they can recoup the £80million IRB fee and the running costs. How many dedicated rugby stadia of that size are there in Europe, let alone England?

The 2 largest club rugby stadia will be used (and expanded) - Welford Road and Kingsholm. The next dedicated rugby union stadium in size is Twickenham. Stadia of 50000+ capacity in a geographic spread are needed - if you're suggesting that the RFU should build 4 or 5 stadia of the size (or bigger) of Lansdowne Road around the country specifically for RWC, in which club crowds would be lost thereafter, then you're whistling in the wind.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Kia,

Your points 1) & 5) contradict each other

Exeter did indeed sort out their facilities for fans with a decent stadium as required for promotion London Welsh didn't.
In respect of this you are confusing the PRL & the RFU.

Isn't it just promotion that is required for promotion?

If you deserve to go up on your performances then isn't that the requirement? No? You have to look good for the Aviva sponsors too?

That word 'deserve' again - it's been busy this last week or two but it still doesn't seem to have a clue what it actually means.

SecretFly wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Kia,

Your points 1) & 5) contradict each other

Exeter did indeed sort out their facilities for fans with a decent stadium as required for promotion London Welsh didn't.
In respect of this you are confusing the PRL & the RFU.

Isn't it just promotion that is required for promotion?

If you deserve to go up on your performances then isn't that the requirement? No? You have to look good for the Aviva sponsors too?

That word 'deserve' again - it's been busy this last week or two but it still doesn't seem to have a clue what it actually means.

It's the criteria that wasn't met and I suspect you realise that.

I agree the players deserved to go up but the club didn't.

We've had many debates about the Munster stadium being in Limerick. Cork is a much bigger population and now with the economy hitting there isn't the same numbers of fans travelling up from Cork to Limerick. Its a bit like fans of an AP team travelling to an away game. The Limerick council were indeed very pro active in getting the stadium built but I don't think they contributed any costs towards the building of it, they probably profited from fees if anything.

Building in less densely populated areas is much easier than building in densely populated areas. The downside is you don't have the same number of fans living nearby. Cardiff Blues are moving back to their old ground which is in a more central area of Cardiff.

You have to feel for the London clubs because it must cost a fortune to buy land in London to build a stadium.

KiaRose wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

KiaRose wrote:I Is there the same will on the part of English clubs and the towns / cities in which they are located to develop rugby as part of the towns' / cities' economic infrastructure?

Living spitting distance from Quins training ground, i'd say yes to that one. They run deveoplment camps all over the place around the SW homes counties and beyond, and if by the amount of academy players i've bumped into on the tiles is any indication, they do recruit a lot of potentials from these camps.

I know Sarries do a lot of N. London camps as well, and make an active point of having their stars turn up.

Alastair

I was referring to the Thomond Park model of development where the local council sat down with the club so that the stadium could be developed - in this case the council recognised the importance of the Rugby Club to the city's economic well-being. There are various estimates of the income derived by Limerick city from a HEC KO match - these estimates are in millions of euro (varying between 2 and 4m euros a game)

Rugby development camps would come under a heading social benefit rather than (strictly speaking) economic benefit. As such they are a valuable activity for developing communities, or to use current sociology-speak - increasing social capital. This is difficult to measure in £sterling and is the sort of thing which is noticed when it goes rather than when it is active. I was addressing the £sd benefit of many supporters travelling to a match and spending money in the town before and after the game with maybe hotel accommodation as well - hence the high estimates of value to Limerick.

Working out the £ sterling of ALL benefit is such a big question, identfiying every constituent cost involved is educated guessing at best. I honestly couldn't say for Guildford and it's surrounding towns, or for home games at the Stoop. Unlike Thomond the Quins ground has been there for 100yrs + now, so even judging for inflation and all the other gubbins involved you are entering a very grey area.

Then there's putting the £ on social capital. It is social capital that brings in the residents & punters, which in turn is swapped into monies for local business. In short, it's a very complicated question, way beyond anything that can be convincingly answered here or now. Same goes for Sarries in North London, i know that part of their planning permission for Barnett was essentially 'How can you make the surrounding area better? What will you bring?' i presume to both the local economy and social capital. Could be worth looking into that development as its the most recent of an English club setting down roots as part of its heritage/infrastructure?

AlastairW wrote:

Same goes for Sarries in North London, i know that part of their planning permission for Barnett was essentially 'How can you make the surrounding area better? What will you bring?' i presume to both the local economy and social capital. Could be worth looking into that development as its the most recent of an English club setting down roots as part of its heritage/infrastructure?

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when referencing the Thomond redevelopment. This seems to be at least part of the difficulties Bath have had in redeveloping the Rec. Bath City council is absolutely paranoid about losing their World Heritage Status and will not allow any flexibility intheir thouight processes (I know the Charity Commissioners have been involved too, but what is missing is a willingness to think through the problem). Bath CC want ot preserve the City in Aspic and yet they allowed to be built the most godawful Bus Station / Shopping Centre and as a result very nearly lost their heritage status.

I would like to see the Sarries example used by other clubs so that all the stakeholders - clubs, owners, players, fans AND the towns - get a good deal.

Theres a big flaw in the English argument that people are overlooking. They claim they should get money according to the amount of viewing figures from England. Well, what about the fans of the 1000+ other English clubs who pay to watch the HEC? The PLR are claiming all these as their own too even though they're privately owned clubs. The same goes for the French teams. They've no right to claim ownership over a whole countries viewing figures.

I don't think anyone is arguing that English clubs own the market in England. The standard arrangement is that clubs/unions own the rights to matches hosted in their territory. So if each club was selling individually they'd sell all their home game rights, but would get nothing for their away games. The BT deal if it were to go ahead is (I believe) just for the matches hosted in England.

BTW, its clear to me now that Welsh, Scottish and Irish rugby fans are paying more to watch the HEC than English rugby fans. We have to pay for sky sports to watch it while the English fans are getting the HEC and AP coverage on sky sports.


So instead of looking at numbers alone we need to look at the amount SKY is making per person. The IRFU ignored this when the 'free to air' debate was taking place last year. Why? Well, they'd have to admit they want the Irish public to cough up the dosh. Its a nice cosy arrangement they have with SKY/ERC. Part of the reason SKY pay what they do is because they want the Irish, Welsh and Scottish market for themselves.


The PLR also need to be careful. Not only are they throwing their weight around but you can be sure the Pro 12 teams are working behind the scenes on getting France on their side. Remember the French are more concerned about changing the format while the English are more concerned about the money. If the Pro 12 teams do a deal on changing the format to please the French (and it will be changed whether thats bringing forward the final or having less teams in it) then the PLR could find themselves on their own.

Big wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that English clubs own the market in England. The standard arrangement is that clubs/unions own the rights to matches hosted in their territory. So if each club was selling individually they'd sell all their home game rights, but would get nothing for their away games. The BT deal if it were to go ahead is (I believe) just for the matches hosted in England.

They're behaving as if they do. Remember they are private clubs. They're fully entitled to claim all the AP coverage money but this is a European competition.

profitius wrote:English fans are getting the HEC and AP coverage on sky sports.

Most AP coverage is on ESPN, with some on Sky.

The PRL are also assuming that all the English Sky subscribing rugby fans just want to watch PRL teams in the HEC. Most rugby fans enjoy all rugby! Not just their team.

I enjoy watching games from South Africa and NZ as well as European leagues.

profitius wrote:They're behaving as if they do. Remember they are private clubs. They're fully entitled to claim all the AP coverage money but this is a European competition.

No, they're behaving as though they control the viewing rights to the English club games. Worldwide. They have no control over the UK viewing rights for any other games.

Regarding the fact English fans get premiership games as well, I think Sky already do this. BT are willing to pay £80-100M for just the English games for 3 years. Sky are willing to pay £70M for ALL games for 4 years.

HammerofThunor wrote:

profitius wrote:They're behaving as if they do. Remember they are private clubs. They're fully entitled to claim all the AP coverage money but this is a European competition.

No, they're behaving as though they control the viewing rights to the English club games. Worldwide. They have no control over the UK viewing rights for any other games.

Regarding the fact English fans get premiership games as well, I think Sky already do this. BT are willing to pay £80-100M for just the English games for 3 years. Sky are willing to pay £70M for ALL games for 4 years.

Hammer - re your last line I was wondering about this. There have been a couple of quotes saying the Prem portion of the BT bid of 152m is about 88m and the balance 64m is for the European games. ( The BT deal is for four years I thought). However, I wonder if the values are linked on having both comps. In other words, if the ERC agreement came out and said ok put a specific number on the table for the European comps to BT and to Sky. What would they put on the table? Or are ERC now committed to the deal with Sky? Neither of these figures include the French market or do they?

I think people are just confused about what rights BT are claiming. True to form from big companies, they haven't been too forward in trying to explain it in enough detail to end the confusion. There is always wriggle room so that if things get hot you can always modify what you 'meant' to say.

So I'll try to do a step by step on it and see how far I get before stumbling:

An Englishman sitting at home in London.
BT control his viewing pleasure for the complete AP. Any game in the league now will be BT televised games. Correct? Correct and no argument coming from outsiders about this aspect.
That same Englishman sitting at home will also see all European Competition games involving AP sides on BT platform.
This seems the part that is non-negotiable. BT control their product, and their product is AP clubs.

Ok.

European Competition is not owned by/won't be owned by PRL or BT.
European Competition will need outside clubs (outside the PRL sphere) to participate in it.
Someone will own a future European Competition. The owners, whoever they are, will want to control the competition. Controlling the competition will involve controlling the coverage of the event.

But let's go easy on that one for a bit and just assume that some kind of European competition is agreed and PRL/BT maintains their non-negotiable bit.

But... lets also say that SKY chooses to continue with Pro12 European coverage...and more importantly, PRO12 teams give them the exclusive rights enjoyed by BT for AP sides.
Let's say French clubs choose their TV company of choice but leave them aside for now.

BT demands that Leinster v Leicester (played in England) is televised by them in England? - They have the rights. It's their game to show.

BT demands that Leinster V Leicester (played in Ireland) is televised by them in England? - What happens? Do they demand rights they don't have or do they buy SKY coverage and televise it exclusively in England (realtime) on their own platform? Will SKY allow them to televise in realtime? Would SKY force an annoying delay? How much would SKY demand from BT for televising rights to SKY sides when outside England? Would BT just not show that particular game at all.? Would SKY be legally prevented from televising the game on their own platform in England? In brief, would English Leicester fans miss out completely on seeing Leicester play in Ireland during a European Competition?

Apparently if the SRU or FIR are unhappy with the outcome of this debate and feel that relegation from having two automatic qualified teams in the HEC is detrimental to their rugby at all levels they can ask the IRB to intervene.

The IRB will protect Scottish and Italian rugby if they feel it is being treated unfairly and will duely suffer.

SecretFly wrote:That same Englishman sitting at home will also see all European Competition games involving AP sides on BT platform.
This seems the part that is non-negotiable. BT control their product, and their product is AP clubs.

That's not my understanding. BT believes it has the rights to any European home games for AP clubs, not away games. If the BT plan holds, and some European competition exists, rights to away games are still up for grabs. The conflict you outline, then, doesn't take place.

PRL thinks the other parties to a European competition should sell their rights - whether collectively or individually. They are offering to put their BT money for European games (amount currently unknown) in the same pot, which can then be distributed under some later agreement.

Will BT also aim to bid for those rights? We don't know. We also don't know whether the broadcast rights to a European competition are worth more as a package or sold separately. PRL obvioulsly think the latter.

A rather novel thought has occurred to me. The HC is made up of teams from three leagues. Why not, for the sake of fairness, have equal qualifying numbers from each league with room for the previous season's winners and the winners of the junior competition.

Each league then decides who it puts forward for the HC, and whether it has some form of qualification by merit (league position).

Is that too simple a concept?

Hound as it stands we have:

6 French
6 English
10 Rabo

There is not a chance in the world I would accept us being "equal". That would involve "us" sacrificing 40% of our teams and England and France keeping everything.

Hound_of_Harrow wrote:A rather novel thought has occurred to me. The HC is made up of teams from three leagues. Why not, for the sake of fairness, have equal qualifying numbers from each league with room for the previous season's winners and the winners of the junior competition.

Each league then decides who it puts forward for the HC, and whether it has some form of qualification by merit (league position).

Is that too simple a concept?

Or 6 countries. If they're serious about growing the game they'll support Italian rugby.

Hound_of_Harrow wrote:A rather novel thought has occurred to me. The HC is made up of teams from three leagues. Why not, for the sake of fairness, have equal qualifying numbers from each league with room for the previous season's winners and the winners of the junior competition.

Each league then decides who it puts forward for the HC, and whether it has some form of qualification by merit (league position).

Is that too simple a concept?

That's the point Hound. Originally it was/is a competition for 6 unions to put domestic teams in. Since then the PRO12 was formed and the PRL and LNR want it be about 3 leagues rather than 6 unions.

Fly, each union has control of the viewing rights for all of their home games. These are worldwide viewing rights not local ones. So the RFU has no say whatsoever in the viewing rights for SANZAR competitions. Nothing to do with them. Same as the IRFU have no control over the RFU TV rights (including European domestic). The ERC had control over the rights up until 2014 and they've sold them to Sky. After 2014 the rights return to their home unions to do with what they will.

Apparently if the SRU or FIR are unhappy with the outcome of this debate and feel that relegation from having two automatic qualified teams in the HEC is detrimental to their rugby at all levels they can ask the IRB to intervene.

According to who/what?

Pot, the Premiership TV deal is 4 years (as of next season). The European TV deal was 3 years (from 2014-15 season).

HammerofThunor wrote:

Fly, each union has control of the viewing rights for all of their home games. These are worldwide viewing rights not local ones. So the RFU has no say whatsoever in the viewing rights for SANZAR competitions. Nothing to do with them. Same as the IRFU have no control over the RFU TV rights (including European domestic). The ERC had control over the rights up until 2014 and they've sold them to Sky. After 2014 the rights return to their home unions to do with what they will.

Yeah, but that home game rights thing is obvious, I mean it's what we all expect...that each nation or clubs/provinces/regions within a nation or league control their own home games; ie, decide who has rights to their home games without interference from foreign clubs leagues etc.

Even when SKY controlled the entire HEC, that was an agreement entered into by all the members of the ERC, including the PRL.

So................ why are we all animated by this then? I don't care what platform shows English home games (domestic or European) to English people. It's not a concern. But I think the concern is there in this ongoing, long, long debate because many people aren't so certain what exactly BT are claiming. Some think their demands are quite bizarre actually, so they must be having difficulty working out the truth of what BT is claiming rights to. And I'm not just talking folks like us here on 606, I'm talking about journalists and rugby officials in an around Europe who are talking about this. Nobody is clear about BT's position - and that's obvious as we and many forums are still debating it.

SecretFly wrote:I think the concern is there in this ongoing, long, long debate because many people aren't so certain what exactly BT are claiming. Some think their demands are quite bizarre actually, so they must be having difficulty working out the truth of what BT is claiming rights to.

I don't think BT have made any bizarre claims but there have certainly been some bizarre claims made by other parties about the deal they have with PRL.

This is probably due in part to the fact that most people aren't very familiar with how rights deals work. We also have a situation where some people reporting in the media are doing so for organizations which are now in direct competition with BT (in particular, any Murdoch outlets and ESPN).

On top of that, PRL is in a negotiation where they hope to use revenue from the deal as a bargaining chip so only the headline number is currently public. This leaves us all to speculate freely on potential values but, ultimately, the only discussion that counts is necessarily taking place behind closed doors.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think the concern is there in this ongoing, long, long debate because many people aren't so certain what exactly BT are claiming. Some think their demands are quite bizarre actually, so they must be having difficulty working out the truth of what BT is claiming rights to.

I don't think BT have made any bizarre claims but there have certainly been some bizarre claims made by other parties about the deal they have with PRL.

This is probably due in part to the fact that most people aren't very familiar with how rights deals work. We also have a situation where some people reporting in the media are doing so for organizations which are now in direct competition with BT (in particular, any Murdoch outlets and ESPN).

On top of that, PRL is in a negotiation where they hope to use revenue from the deal as a bargaining chip so only the headline number is currently public. This leaves us all to speculate freely on potential values but, ultimately, the only discussion that counts is necessarily taking place behind closed doors.

Of course it will be, ..but 'behind closed doors' isn't a very sexy solution to good robust debate.... we'll carry on debating what we don't know, I'm sure of it

Guys you are forgetting that the BT deal isn't necesarily legal. The RFU have said that the PRL do not have the TV rights to sell.

I still haven't seen anything to say that the RFU think the PRL BT deal is legal. No matter how many posts or threads on which HammerofThunnor claims it is.



The current structure of the tournament comes to an end at the culmination of the 2013-14 season and there are fears that Premiership Rugby's announcement that they are taking charge of their own television rights has effectively sounded a 'death knell' for the future of the tournament. The ERC claimed at the time that their breakaway television deal was not in line with IRB regulations and former RFU chief Martyn Thomas claims that it also breaches the existing agreement between clubs and the RFU.

"It stipulates the clubs must play in the two European competitions up to and including 2015-16," he told BBC Sport. "If they go ahead with this breakaway they could be liable for a legal challenge and have to pay substantial damages."

This view, referring back to a deal brokered in 2007, was seemingly backed up by the RFU who claimed that they had not granted the PRL permission to sell their own television rights.

maestegmafia wrote:Guys you are forgetting that the BT deal isn't necesarily legal. The RFU have said that the PRL do not have the TV rights to sell.

I still haven't seen anything to say that the RFU think the PRL BT deal is legal. No matter how many posts or threads on which HammerofThunnor claims it is.

Actually I 'claimed' the BT was legal before the RFU reviewed their agreement with the PRL as said it wasn't. Since then I've said that I expect the RFU to approve the deal. What I HAVE said is that the ERC Sky deal post-2014 is just as illegal as the BT one.

MaestegMafia wrote:The current structure of the tournament comes to an end at the culmination of the 2013-14 season and there are fears that Premiership Rugby's announcement that they are taking charge of their own television rights has effectively sounded a 'death knell' for the future of the tournament. The ERC claimed at the time that their breakaway television deal was not in line with IRB regulations and former RFU chief Martyn Thomas claims that it also breaches the existing agreement between clubs and the RFU.

"It stipulates the clubs must play in the two European competitions up to and including 2015-16," he told BBC Sport. "If they go ahead with this breakaway they could be liable for a legal challenge and have to pay substantial damages."

This view, referring back to a deal brokered in 2007, was seemingly backed up by the RFU who claimed that they had not granted the PRL permission to sell their own television rights.

Yes, all true. It's been covered over and over. The RFU own the broadcast rights for all European English home games following 2014 (if any exist). The ERC don't. The RFU have the choice of refusing the deal, possibly causing the collapse of the Premiership BT deal, and earn the fury of the top clubs. For what? To go with a TV deal that earns less money? A TV deal that breaks the stranglehold Sky have had on European rugby for years?