New H-cup, minus the English likely?

First topic message reminder :

According to Gerry Thornley in today's article the FFR have more power than their clubs when it comes to negotiating and their priority is to make sure that the French players play less rugby, for the sake of the national side, and also so that they can compete in the playoffs in the Top 14 without any clash with the H cup. This is the gist of what Patrick Wolff, vice president of the LNR (represents French clubs) says in the quote below:

"But much stricter French law and the strength of the French Federation, whose president Pierre Camus signs off any television deal involving the French team or its clubs, means the LNR could not go down the English clubs’ route.

“The Heineken Cup is a very good competition and we don’t want to kill it,” added Wolff. “We love the Heineken Cup in France. Sometimes we complain, because we are French first, then because the Celts don’t play as many games as us. But I can’t imagine that the French will allow the big games like Clermont against Leinster not to happen. We will do our best to keep these type of games.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0915/1224324046581.html

If they can make the same money but have a reduced number of competitors they may well be happy with that. If the English leave both of these outcomes could be accomplished without too much hardship to one side. They may well also want more money and tougher qualification rules for the pro 12 sides but their priorities are not the same as the English clubs. Would the LNR and public be happier with a smaller competition that included the best sides in Europe (mostly from the pro 12) or one with the next best sides in Europe involving only one other country?

Whatever way these negotiations go this way that people have gone of playing out each stage/ idea in public is a very bad idea. People are far less likely to back down and compromise if they think that they will lose face for going back on a previous statement. Pride could play as big a part as logic and greed in this process.

Update: From the Guardian, 25th Sept
"They opened talks directly with some South African and French clubs. This has hampered the negotiations. It is hard to talk with them. We may have to move on without the English, though I do not want it."
ERC chairman, Jean Pierre Lux quoted in the Guardian today.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/25/bt-deal-heineken-cup-illegal

He couldn't have made it clearer that they are considering a h cup without English clubs.

My understanding might be all wrong but the PRL: - we all hear this idea that PRL were given rights by the RFU to conduct their own negotiations for broadcasting rights to PRL games. This is why, we are told, the PRL feel they have right and legality on their side.

Perhaps they are....em right.

But I'm sure I read somewhere that the PRL were not given absolute rights - they were given rights that have a beginning date and an end date. They have a period of self-governance, in other words, but the RFU will regain full control after that period if no other negotiations lengthen the agreement.

Am I right? Am I wrong? I'm sure I saw this somewhere.

Anyway, the point is, if my reading is right, that it's all very well being comfortable with your strident rights now but it isn't going to exactly improve your negotiating hand when those rights end and you want to go the RFU to negotiate new ones.

"They opened talks directly with some South African and French clubs. This has hampered the negotiations. It is hard to talk with them. We may have to move on without the English, though I do not want it."
ERC chairman, Jean Pierre Lux quoted in the Guardian today.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/25/bt-deal-heineken-cup-illegal

He couldn't have made it clearer that they are considering a h cup without English clubs.

Toadfish wrote:
You can't throw us out, we've already fricken left!

Makes a lot of sense actually. You can then call the premiership "the new and exciting European Competition" and get a clatter of extra money off BT.

Something needs to happen to give the Welsh regions a better crack at the HC. Chuck England out, that will help the revenues too.

SecretFly wrote:My understanding might be all wrong but the PRL: - we all hear this idea that PRL were given rights by the RFU to conduct their own negotiations for broadcasting rights to PRL games. This is why, we are told, the PRL feel they have right and legality on their side.

Perhaps they are....em right.

But I'm sure I read somewhere that the PRL were not given absolute rights - they were given rights that have a beginning date and an end date. They have a period of self-governance, in other words, but the RFU will regain full control after that period if no other negotiations lengthen the agreement.

Am I right? Am I wrong? I'm sure I saw this somewhere.

Anyway, the point is, if my reading is right, that it's all very well being comfortable with your strident rights now but it isn't going to exactly improve your negotiating hand when those rights end and you want to go the RFU to negotiate new ones.

SecretFly, i believe you are right. From what i read PRL had been granted rights by the RFU to negotiate there own contracts from 2007 through 2014/15/16 not sure which and that the BT deals runs past that and therefore is prima facie illegal.

However i'm doubtful the RFU are going to start an all out war PRL, their actions so far suggest not either. Its really not in their interest to do such a thing.

Other than in exposing ERC's (read ALL the unions) commercial ineptuitude i'm struggling to think of a reason why the PRL BT deal would be of any great concern to the unions, French clubs and any other interested parties (except maybe Sky!). In fact they should be delighted shouldn't they?

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Toadfish wrote:
You can't throw us out, we've already fricken left!

Makes a lot of sense actually. You can then call the premiership "the new and exciting European Competition" and get a clatter of extra money off BT.

I thin the clattering would more likely be the BT Vision pot falling off the shelf for a massively reduced sum. No European rugby, only the English premiership and BT Visions new sport package looks pretty poor considering that most blokes who watch HEC and AP, plus tri nations and RC on Sky would have to get a new deal to be able to watch the premiership.

I think most would not bother to change over and just watch the Itv highlights show, rendering the BT vision deal looking exactly like the previous ITV Digital deal for Premiership Football.

Secretfly,

you're absolutely right. PRL were granted rights to their domestic TV rights in the 2007 EPS Agreement which runs for 8 years. They have been considerably premature, but, I expect, they are relying on RFU's unwillingness to rock the boat ahead of RWC 2015. If RFU renew PRL's entitlement to the TV rights, no problem.

PRL were never given Euro TV rights, but were given the right to give the English direction to ERC with respect to TV rights, along with their votes on the ERC board. I expect that with their withdrawal from ERC, they consider this no longer applies, but again thay have been premature by assuming that Euro TV rights would revert to them.

Somer of the press reports indicate that the BT deal includes all english games, including away ones. If they have been selling away games, that's not just premature, but naughty. However, if the away game rights-holders give the OK, through negotiation, representation and a big wedge of money, then that too can be resolved. I hope it's not that way, though - much more clear cut for home games TV to remain within that territory, like Pro12, but be pooled, unlike Pro12.

Another part of the EPS Agreement is that both RFU and PRL would campaign for 2 blocks of 3 pool games instead of 3 of 2 in the HC and Amlin. Given that was 5 years ago, that may have moved on, and there may be support for the single block, pools to final, that Laporte has espoused. That's complete speculation on my part.

I'm hoping that there will be "limited comment" from the stakeholders in public - that would indicate to me that negotiations in the background are progressing.

Intotouch wrote:"They opened talks directly with some South African and French clubs. This has hampered the negotiations. It is hard to talk with them. We may have to move on without the English, though I do not want it."
ERC chairman, Jean Pierre Lux quoted in the Guardian today.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/25/bt-deal-heineken-cup-illegal

He couldn't have made it clearer that they are considering a h cup without English clubs.

Hey thats what the Pro 12 want it the H-cup falls through, leave those poor SA teams alone, anyway the English prem wouldn't be good enough for the super XV teams, only the top Pro 12 teams would be.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Somer of the press reports indicate that the BT deal includes all english games, including away ones. If they have been selling away games, that's not just premature, but naughty. However, if the away game rights-holders give the OK, through negotiation, representation and a big wedge of money, then that too can be resolved. I hope it's not that way, though - much more clear cut for home games TV to remain within that territory, like Pro12, but be pooled, unlike Pro12.

I've had many a discussion with English guys about that very issue, Dubbelyew. I said that the lack of clarity on this one is prehaps the biggest sticking point amongst us, the followers - as it presumes to some not just 'naughtiness' but downright arrogance to lay claim to the away rights of any club or clubs in advance of the 'away' clubs/nations/unions having a say.

It lacks clarity this one, and it's why many people throw it up constantly and many others ridicule it as an over-reaction and as not being a claim put forward by PRL at all.

It's all very well saying the 'away' interests might come round to the idea if enough money was on the table but to sign the deal before you ask them is just looking for trouble. People don't like being stepped on - most especially their 'rights'.

Anyway, it might all be a misunderstanding but I doubt we'll ever hear anything clear until the talks in October.

SecretFly wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Somer of the press reports indicate that the BT deal includes all english games, including away ones. If they have been selling away games, that's not just premature, but naughty. However, if the away game rights-holders give the OK, through negotiation, representation and a big wedge of money, then that too can be resolved. I hope it's not that way, though - much more clear cut for home games TV to remain within that territory, like Pro12, but be pooled, unlike Pro12.

I've had many a discussion with English guys about that very issue, Dubbelyew. I said that the lack of clarity on this one is prehaps the biggest sticking point amongst us, the followers - as it presumes to some not just 'naughtiness' but downright arrogance to lay claim to the away rights of any club or clubs in advance of the 'away' clubs/nations/unions having a say.

It lacks clarity this one, and it's why many people throw it up constantly and many others ridicule it as an over-reaction and as not being a claim put forward by PRL at all.

It's all very well saying the 'away' interests might come round to the idea if enough money was on the table but to sign the deal before you ask them is just looking for trouble. People don't like being stepped on - most especially their 'rights'.

Anyway, it might all be a misunderstanding but I doubt we'll ever hear anything clear until the talks in October.

I agree

It seems ridiculous that the PRL would want to put English clubs participation in the Europes biggest money spinning comp at risk. But that's what they have done.

The good that might come of it would be a challenge to the RFU to put the PRlL in their place.

maestegmafia wrote:It seems ridiculous that the PRL would want to put English clubs participation in the Europes biggest money spinning comp at risk. But that's what they have done.

The good that might come of it would be a challenge to the RFU to put the PRlL in their place.

Actually the Top14 and AP (assuming the domestic part of the BT deal holds - there's no logical reason for the RFU to veto that) both earn more money in total than the HEC does. Admittedly the HEC is most valuable on a per-match basis.

Broadly, the money BT are offering (assuming the reported splits are correct) for the AP alone gives the English clubs more than they were previously getting for AP + HEC combined. So you can certainly see why they were interested.

Adding on the Euro rights was incredibly provocative and arrogant though - what they should have done is go to the ERC meeting and say "Sky are ripping us all off, look what BT are prepared to offer".

Isn't Lux the FRU appointment that the French clubs weren't all that impressed with?

The thing that the English clubs seems to forget while negotiating is that they are negotiating with representatives of unions, not just clubs, who are interested in the survival of the six nations competition, which relies on six countries with competitive national teams. If more money for French clubs also means that rugby in Scotland and Italy goes down the tubes then this damages the six nations, which may mean less money in another way for France and less competitive international fixtures. So no matter how much money the PRL wave at the French reps the French will still try to keep the h cup inclusive. The six nations is the most important competition in the eyes of the unions and the clubs are useful vehicles for nurturing international players.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Actually the Top14 and AP (assuming the domestic part of the BT deal holds - there's no logical reason for the RFU to veto that) both earn more money in total than the HEC does. Admittedly the HEC is more valuable on a per-match basis.

...and on a per-reputation basis, and on a per-marketing basis, and on a player satisfacton basis. Value really does come from more than the money being offered/earned, value is in the product being played and televised.

On a side note I cant help but feel the BT deal is a bit risky.

The main reason they have even signed up to the European competition is to get more of the cross customer base which Sky and a whole host of other companies compete in. The all-in-one packages (ie phone,tv internet) deals.

Now call me suspicious here but given they are investing 152 million they will want to see a substantial return on business for this. I cant see them continuing their sponsorship indefnitly if for example they do not stop the influx of people currently using other non BT options for their base packages.

Here is where it gets tricky. I cant see Sky being ammused by all this given they initially invested in the tournament when it wasnt a household product and helped it become the competition it is today through its exposure. I just dont see them making a return offer if for example the BT deals does not end up getting renewed. Even if they do I think it would be a lot less than they currently already pay to secure the package.

I know sentiment does not always apply in business but given Rugby is no exactly attracting the top sponsors its got to be considered risky.

Welshmushroom wrote:On a side note I cant help but feel the BT deal is a bit risky.

The main reason they have even signed up to the European competition is to get more of the cross customer base which Sky and a whole host of other companies compete in. The all-in-one packages (ie phone,tv internet) deals.

Now call me suspicious here but given they are investing 152 million they will want to see a substantial return on business for this. I cant see them continuing their sponsorship indefnitly if for example they do not stop the influx of people currently using other non BT options for their base packages.

Here is where it gets tricky. I cant see Sky being ammused by all this given they initially invested in the tournament when it wasnt a household product and helped it become the competition it is today through its exposure. I just dont see them making a return offer if for example the BT deals does not end up getting renewed. Even if they do I think it would be a lot less than they currently already pay to secure the package.

I know sentiment does not always apply in business but given Rugby is no exactly attracting the top sponsors its got to be considered risky.

It is risky - BT have also bought a decent slice of English football, and you can bet they'll be trying to buy up some cricket and other sports too, in an effort to get established. I'd expect them to at least surpass Virgin Media for market share. However, Sky will know how many people watch which matches, and hence how much a given competition is worth to them advertising wise.

Who cut me off mid-sentence!!??? My verbose speeches will not be interfered with!

What will the ABE HC fans do then ?

I'm a ABEFWS+I fan myself.... a very selfish sort.

Secret, so HC will be the Irish regions vs The Scots, and maybe the odd stray valley team. Oh and some Italians.

That'll do nicely, gregor.

Of course not, didn't you see that I'm anti all-of'em??? Besides, where would the world be without English involvement? Every book needs a pantomime villain, a pantomime hot-head, a pantomime good looking prince, a pantomime grimfaced warrior type, a pantomime fop and a pantomime eejit.

I think we have the whole cast in our little HC show.

BTW I do hope the Jeff clubs don't screw up European rugby. I like having Munster meet us at Kingsholm. Had a craic last time even tho we lost.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:On a side note I cant help but feel the BT deal is a bit risky.

The main reason they have even signed up to the European competition is to get more of the cross customer base which Sky and a whole host of other companies compete in. The all-in-one packages (ie phone,tv internet) deals.

Now call me suspicious here but given they are investing 152 million they will want to see a substantial return on business for this. I cant see them continuing their sponsorship indefnitly if for example they do not stop the influx of people currently using other non BT options for their base packages.

Here is where it gets tricky. I cant see Sky being ammused by all this given they initially invested in the tournament when it wasnt a household product and helped it become the competition it is today through its exposure. I just dont see them making a return offer if for example the BT deals does not end up getting renewed. Even if they do I think it would be a lot less than they currently already pay to secure the package.

I know sentiment does not always apply in business but given Rugby is no exactly attracting the top sponsors its got to be considered risky.

It is risky - BT have also bought a decent slice of English football, and you can bet they'll be trying to buy up some cricket and other sports too, in an effort to get established. I'd expect them to at least surpass Virgin Media for market share. However, Sky will know how many people watch which matches, and hence how much a given competition is worth to them advertising wise.

Can't imagine BSkyB just letting sport all move to a rival without a solid fight.

maestegmafia wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:On a side note I cant help but feel the BT deal is a bit risky.

The main reason they have even signed up to the European competition is to get more of the cross customer base which Sky and a whole host of other companies compete in. The all-in-one packages (ie phone,tv internet) deals.

Now call me suspicious here but given they are investing 152 million they will want to see a substantial return on business for this. I cant see them continuing their sponsorship indefnitly if for example they do not stop the influx of people currently using other non BT options for their base packages.

Here is where it gets tricky. I cant see Sky being ammused by all this given they initially invested in the tournament when it wasnt a household product and helped it become the competition it is today through its exposure. I just dont see them making a return offer if for example the BT deals does not end up getting renewed. Even if they do I think it would be a lot less than they currently already pay to secure the package.

I know sentiment does not always apply in business but given Rugby is no exactly attracting the top sponsors its got to be considered risky.

It is risky - BT have also bought a decent slice of English football, and you can bet they'll be trying to buy up some cricket and other sports too, in an effort to get established. I'd expect them to at least surpass Virgin Media for market share. However, Sky will know how many people watch which matches, and hence how much a given competition is worth to them advertising wise.

Can't imagine BSkyB just letting sport all move to a rival without a solid fight.

Indeed. I imagine Sky are already pretty grumpy about the amount of football that BT bought - the Prem League have a policy of not letting 1 company have everything, but BT picked up more than the likes of Setanta ever managed. And giving Sky the chance to bid against BT would have been a smart play for ERC - the deal they signed could have been better.

But BT has deeper pockets than Sky does. And in fairness, I'm not terribly upset if Rupert Murdoch is grumpy

gregortree wrote:BTW I do hope the Jeff clubs don't screw up European rugby. I like having Munster meet us at Kingsholm. Had a craic last time even tho we lost.

Me too. I enjoy visits to England. Gloucester were over with some fans in pre season and some of them sat with us. Last time they were here was 06 in Lansdowne rd, but I never managed the away trip.

I did go to the Toulouse Gloucester game in Toulouse last November because we were over in Montpellier for the weekend and fancied a road trip.

Gloucester nearly won that one. I was sitting behind the goal where they scored their try to lead with a few mins to go. I think it was the queens grandson in law to Trinder for the try.

Toulouse just got out of jail.


Sh1t. Rambling again.

No I'm not either. Murdoch is hardly an upstanding businessman.

Though from how thus effects the sport I am dubious of the BT deal because for BT to make this work they need to take the customers who BSkyB provide tv, internet and phone services.

That is really what they are competing for and not for the good of the sport. It's a highly risky investment on BTs behalf and the ramifications of it going belly up are not good for any if us.

Is it wise to sell the sport to a provider with a bigger budget or is the more sensible option to renegotiate a deal with a company that you know can provide the goods..?

I hadn't thought of that point of view. If the actual coverage BT provide is dodgy then long term it could be detrimental to the sport in England.

I don't see any problems with BT providing the service. Their sports programming is supposedly set to be rolled out on freeview, youview, online, and they've been negotiating with Virgin & Sky to provide it since they got the football rights. If anything it's likely to mean more people have easier access to the programming, not needing to get Sky & Virgin's packages to subscribe, whilst someone like Virgin will make it an option in their sports packages as they did with ESPN.

BT are certainly looking to break Sky's stranglehold, but how they're planning on rolling it out strongly suggests its success isn't just about drawing people onto their other competing services, but a more longterm and bigger play for establishing themselves as a leader in general media & entertainment, much like Sky set out to do decades ago. It's an area that is only set to boom in increasingly innovative ways, one BT is right to look to move into and I expect a company of its weight & wealth to be succesful doing so, with the full backing of its investors.

In the Sud Ouest I just read an interview with Lux (chairman of ERC) that suggests contempt for the English clubs views and actions. http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/09/25/les-anglais-c-est-difficile-830681-5103.php He describes the English clubs motivation as purely financial, as opposed to the French who come with positive suggestions and want to reshape the league in a way that would make it more competitive.

In the last paragraph the interviewer asks "Is a h cup without the Celts likely?"
To which he responds "At this moment we must think about a competition without the English."

He continues "No, obviously this isn't what I want and I don't think this will happen. But sometimes, the English are difficult. Actually they're talking about a third competition with emerging nations, in four or five years they'll be blocking that"

"Une compétition sans les Celtes, est-ce concevable ?

À ce moment-là, il faut penser à une compétition sans les Anglais… Non, bien évidemment que je ne le souhaite pas, et je ne pense pas qu'on y arrivera. Mais parfois, les Anglais, c'est difficile. Actuellement, ils parlent d'une troisième compétition avec les pays émergents alors que ça fait quatre ou cinq ans qu'ils la bloquent."

(Please excuse my not perfect translation)

This worries me. It the chairman of the ERC has the attitude that the English clubs are difficult or even absurd in their demands or suggestions then it doesn't suggest that a compromise will be reached any time soon. This will drag on and on. Casually suggesting that they must consider a competition without the English makes me think that they are willing to do this, however reluctantly.

Intotouch wrote:In the Sud Ouest I just read an interview with Lux (chairman of ERC) that suggests contempt for the English clubs views and actions. http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/09/25/les-anglais-c-est-difficile-830681-5103.php He describes the English clubs motivation as purely financial, as opposed to the French who come with positive suggestions and want to reshape the league in a way that would make it more competitive.

In the last paragraph the interviewer asks "Is a h cup without the Celts likely?"
To which he responds "At this moment we must think about a competition without the English."

He continues "No, obviously this isn't what I want and I don't think this will happen. But sometimes, the English are difficult. Actually they're talking about a third competition with emerging nations, in four or five years they'll be blocking that"

"Une compétition sans les Celtes, est-ce concevable ?

À ce moment-là, il faut penser à une compétition sans les Anglais… Non, bien évidemment que je ne le souhaite pas, et je ne pense pas qu'on y arrivera. Mais parfois, les Anglais, c'est difficile. Actuellement, ils parlent d'une troisième compétition avec les pays émergents alors que ça fait quatre ou cinq ans qu'ils la bloquent."

(Please excuse my not perfect translation)

This worries me. It the chairman of the ERC has the attitude that the English clubs are difficult or even absurd in their demands or suggestions then it doesn't suggest that a compromise will be reached any time soon. This will drag on and on. Casually suggesting that they must consider a competition without the English makes me think that they are willing to do this, however reluctantly.

Lux does no represent the French clubs. They did not vote for him to be chairman. Do not confuse French clubs with the French Union. The French Unions are as out of touch with commercial realities as all the other unions.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Intotouch wrote:In the Sud Ouest I just read an interview with Lux (chairman of ERC) that suggests contempt for the English clubs views and actions. http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/09/25/les-anglais-c-est-difficile-830681-5103.php He describes the English clubs motivation as purely financial, as opposed to the French who come with positive suggestions and want to reshape the league in a way that would make it more competitive.

In the last paragraph the interviewer asks "Is a h cup without the Celts likely?"
To which he responds "At this moment we must think about a competition without the English."

He continues "No, obviously this isn't what I want and I don't think this will happen. But sometimes, the English are difficult. Actually they're talking about a third competition with emerging nations, in four or five years they'll be blocking that"

"Une compétition sans les Celtes, est-ce concevable ?

À ce moment-là, il faut penser à une compétition sans les Anglais… Non, bien évidemment que je ne le souhaite pas, et je ne pense pas qu'on y arrivera. Mais parfois, les Anglais, c'est difficile. Actuellement, ils parlent d'une troisième compétition avec les pays émergents alors que ça fait quatre ou cinq ans qu'ils la bloquent."

(Please excuse my not perfect translation)

This worries me. It the chairman of the ERC has the attitude that the English clubs are difficult or even absurd in their demands or suggestions then it doesn't suggest that a compromise will be reached any time soon. This will drag on and on. Casually suggesting that they must consider a competition without the English makes me think that they are willing to do this, however reluctantly.

Lux does no represent the French clubs. They did not vote for him to be chairman. Do not confuse French clubs with the French Union. The French Unions are as out of touch with commercial realities as all the other unions.

Quite correct as Brian Moore pointed out,

'Chicanery in the re-election of ERC president, Frenchman Jean-Pierre Lux, caused huge resentment. Many believe he only succeeded by soliciting the votes of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish clubs and because the French union used arcane French law to purloin their clubs’ votes, though none wanted Lux.
ERC has also been crticised for failing failed to address long-standing dissatisfaction with its administrative and disciplinary procedures; descriptions of the latter from two of the highest-ranked sports lawyers included the words 'Third World’ and 'kangaroo’.'

Lets look at the positives. BT's move might end up forcing sky to cough up more money for everyone.

I'd love to see the HEC moved from sky. At the moment the subscription we pay is mostly going to soccer. Thats a bad deal for rugby fans.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Intotouch wrote:In the Sud Ouest I just read an interview with Lux (chairman of ERC) that suggests contempt for the English clubs views and actions. http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/09/25/les-anglais-c-est-difficile-830681-5103.php He describes the English clubs motivation as purely financial, as opposed to the French who come with positive suggestions and want to reshape the league in a way that would make it more competitive.

In the last paragraph the interviewer asks "Is a h cup without the Celts likely?"
To which he responds "At this moment we must think about a competition without the English."

He continues "No, obviously this isn't what I want and I don't think this will happen. But sometimes, the English are difficult. Actually they're talking about a third competition with emerging nations, in four or five years they'll be blocking that"

"Une compétition sans les Celtes, est-ce concevable ?

À ce moment-là, il faut penser à une compétition sans les Anglais… Non, bien évidemment que je ne le souhaite pas, et je ne pense pas qu'on y arrivera. Mais parfois, les Anglais, c'est difficile. Actuellement, ils parlent d'une troisième compétition avec les pays émergents alors que ça fait quatre ou cinq ans qu'ils la bloquent."

(Please excuse my not perfect translation)

This worries me. It the chairman of the ERC has the attitude that the English clubs are difficult or even absurd in their demands or suggestions then it doesn't suggest that a compromise will be reached any time soon. This will drag on and on. Casually suggesting that they must consider a competition without the English makes me think that they are willing to do this, however reluctantly.

Lux does no represent the French clubs. They did not vote for him to be chairman. Do not confuse French clubs with the French Union. The French Unions are as out of touch with commercial realities as all the other unions.

May not have been a popular vote but he is saying the same as all the French representatives. None are happy with the PRLs move to try and sell the HEC.

Read any of Patrick Wolff's recent interviews

http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=36493

Actually Wolff has never suggested they would consider a competition without the English. He's just said they won't consider an Anglo-French competition while the competition with the Celts AND English is on the table.

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually Wolff has never suggested they would consider a competition without the English. He's just said they won't consider an Anglo-French competition while the competition with the Celts AND English is on the table.

So....What you are saying is....He has not ruled out a comp with just the Rabo teams, but he has ruled out a comp WITHOUT them.

Your own keyboard said it.

Its all a veil of tears.

And eventual compromise. With all the legal, financial rucks and power-struggles, yet to come, I just hope Rugby wins out here in the end.

You are my Heino
My only Heino
You make me happy
When the skies are grey
You'll never know Cup
How much I love you
So please don't take
My Heino Away E...

Believe.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually Wolff has never suggested they would consider a competition without the English. He's just said they won't consider an Anglo-French competition while the competition with the Celts AND English is on the table.

So....What you are saying is....He has not ruled out a comp with just the Rabo teams, but he has ruled out a comp WITHOUT them.

Your own keyboard said it.

Er no. He said he wouldn't consider a competition without the Celts and English unless there was a break down in the negotiations. That means they would consider such a competition if their conditions aren't met. This is on the back of Franglo Cup suggestions but he doesn't say any 'new' competition would include on or the other.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually Wolff has never suggested they would consider a competition without the English. He's just said they won't consider an Anglo-French competition while the competition with the Celts AND English is on the table.

So....What you are saying is....He has not ruled out a comp with just the Rabo teams, but he has ruled out a comp WITHOUT them.

I have a feeling HT is actually Mark McCafferty.

maestegmafia wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually Wolff has never suggested they would consider a competition without the English. He's just said they won't consider an Anglo-French competition while the competition with the Celts AND English is on the table.

So....What you are saying is....He has not ruled out a comp with just the Rabo teams, but he has ruled out a comp WITHOUT them.

I have a feeling HT is actually Mark McCafferty.

That's out of order Maesteg. We've had our disagreements but that's way below the belt.

Considering so many of your posts I thought consider that the highest of compliments.

Just because I don't think facts come by extrapolating what little info we have, doesn't mean I'd agree with the PRL actions (once they're fully known). If there were loads of ridiculous comments talking Poopie about how great the PRL were I'd be commenting on them in the opposite direction. Fact is we know little at the moment.

HammerofThunor wrote:Just because I don't think facts come by extrapolating what little info we have, doesn't mean I'd agree with the PRL actions (once they're fully known). If there were loads of ridiculous comments talking Poopie about how great the PRL were I'd be commenting on them in the opposite direction. Fact is we know little at the moment.

Quite right, Hammer.

Here's another article that's likely to add to the confusion:


"Toulouse president Rene Bouscatel has confirmed that his side will stay in the Heineken Cup in whatever format the tournament takes come the 2014-15 season.

The future of the tournament is being hotly debated at the moment with all six Unions meeting in Dublin last week to thrash out a compromise regarding England and France's misgivings over the qualification process for the prestigious competition.

Both parties believe entry to the Heineken Cup is too heavily weighted in favour of the RaboDirect PRO12 sides and they want the format changed so that the tournament is reduced to 20 teams - six from the Aviva Premiership, six from the Top 14, six from the PRO12 alongside the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup winners.

English and French clubs have served their notice to the ERC with the current format of the Heineken Cup coming to an end in 2014. And Patrick Wolff, vice president of the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR) - the body in charge of the Top 14, revealed that Premiership Rugby (PRL) approached him to propose a breakaway Anglo-French tournament. He rejected this notion and Bouscatel has backed up the LNR's support for a pan-European competition when he told the Rugby Paper that his team will "stay in the Heineken Cup".

With PRL opting to sell its European television rights to BT Vision, there were some fears that their option to break away from the collective Sky Sports deal sounded a death knell for the competition. And the PRL came under increased scrutiny at the meeting last week with some parties believing that the English clubs are keen on teeing up an Anglo-South African tournament as an alternative to the Heineken Cup.

"It was a straight question: 'Have you been talking to teams in South Africa?'" a source told the Rugby Paper. "Mark [McCafferty, CEO of PRL] refused to answer. We understand they have been in discussions with South African teams.

"We have been aware over the last month or so that McCafferty and other senior PRL figures were down there for three weeks. We've been led to believe that during that time they met more than one of the South African provinces."

But PRL insist this is wide of the mark. "Premiership Rugby's sole focus is on getting three new European competitions and creating stronger European rugby not only for all the nations currently involved, but for developing nations as well," said a Premiership Rugby spokesman. "Hypothetical speculation will not help drive European Rugby to new heights.

"Premiership Rugby is trying to achieve a merit based competition with equal qualification from all three leagues the Aviva Premiership, Top 14 and RaboDirect Pro 14, because that is the best solution for the whole of European rugby. The huge BT deal puts 152m into European rugby, and creates the commercial framework to create some wonderful European competitions."

The six Unions will now meet in Rome next month to continue talks and the ERC is adamant that a pan-European tournament will exist in the 2014-15 season regardless of whether English clubs are participating or not.

"Nobody wants that to happen but we will go ahead without them if necessary," an ERC official is quoted as telling the Rugby Paper. "They can stay out and do their own thing if they wish but they've been told in no uncertain terms they have no European rights to sell."


*********

Couple of interesting quotes in that one. Albeit both from unnamed sources. One - that the PRL has been sounding out SA teams. Second one from PRL source: "The huge BT deal puts 152m into European rugby, and creates the commercial framework to create some wonderful European competitions."

The BT deal puts £152m into European rugby? Is this the line that is being advanced now? It certainly sounds like PRL want to break completely from the existing power structure under the ERC in setting up any new European comp. And they want to have a back-up plan if it all goes mammaries up.

As previously speculated the £152 million will shrink ramatically without a European cup. Premiership rights alone are worth about a third of that amount.

The SA link is a pipe dream as SA is tied up with Murdock.

maestegmafia wrote:As previously speculated the £152 million will shrink ramatically without a European cup. Premiership rights alone are worth about a third of that amount.

The SA link is a pipe dream as SA is tied up with Murdock.

How do you know that "Premierhsip rights alone are worth about a third of that amount"?

Pot Hale wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:As previously speculated the £152 million will shrink ramatically without a European cup. Premiership rights alone are worth about a third of that amount.

The SA link is a pipe dream as SA is tied up with Murdock.

How do you know that "Premierhsip rights alone are worth about a third of that amount"?

Because they are currently worth £50 million.

Why would they have increased or decreased?

maestegmafia wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:As previously speculated the £152 million will shrink ramatically without a European cup. Premiership rights alone are worth about a third of that amount.

The SA link is a pipe dream as SA is tied up with Murdock.

How do you know that "Premierhsip rights alone are worth about a third of that amount"?

Because they are currently worth £50 million.

Why would they have increased or decreased?

Fair point. If we don't know? Why not guess and pretend it's true. I mean, it's the best we can do without the facts so let's crack on.

HT cut it out your blattently just trolling my post now.

You disagree, we get it but seriously your constant false accusations are really starting to annoy me.

Cut it out or I will report your behaviour to the mods.

I apologize.

Here is a more serious, direct response.

You have no idea how much the League TV rights makes up of the £152M deal. To make a guess is fine, but to use that as a point is, in effect, pointless.

I'm not trolling your posts. I'm commenting on the topic. Currently a lot of what is being posted (not just by you) is not based on facts. They seem to be based on badly written newspaper articles (which often have headlines that are not backed up by the quoted comments) or personal speculation. Nothing wrong with personal speculation as long as it's not peddled as facts.

Feel free to report me, I welcome it as any guidance from the moderators on my posting would, I'm sure be constructive.

But don't make comments if you don't want to picked up on them.

HammerofThunor wrote:I apologize.

Here is a more serious, direct response.

You have no idea how much the League TV rights makes up of the £152M deal. To make a guess is fine, but to use that as a point is, in effect, pointless.

I'm not trolling your posts. I'm commenting on the topic. Currently a lot of what is being posted (not just by you) is not based on facts. They seem to be based on badly written newspaper articles (which often have headlines that are not backed up by the quoted comments) or personal speculation. Nothing wrong with personal speculation as long as it's not peddled as facts.

Feel free to report me, I welcome it as any guidance from the moderators on my posting would, I'm sure be constructive.

But don't make comments if you don't want to picked up on them.

Have to agree with Hammer there, maesteg. You went awfully wobbly for a response post.

Anyway, what I was asking you how do you know that the Premiership rights are currently worth a third of 152m - £50m? Have the PRL or Sky said so? Or is that the value they were sold for the last time the rights were negotiated?

Sky have offered £70 million for the heineken cup. It has been reported in various newspapers that BT offered an additional £30 million for the same rights and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the headline figure of £152 million is split £100m heineken cup and £52m premiership.