TV rights for Celtic Rugby and the European rows threatening Celtic rugby, a notice to all Rabo fans

First topic message reminder :

I do not know if anybody is aware, but there is a programme on every Friday night at 9pm called sports Wales, now this is looking at the European row threatening the Celtic nations and TV rights for the Rabo league. I am waiting for this with baited breath and cannot wait to see what they tell us, after all we have all had enough to say about it on here recently. Bon appetit.

profitius wrote:How is that the case, rugby fan?

I know this qualifies for a TL;DR. No offence taken if people don't care to plough on.

Let me first say that rugby is doing pretty well in the world of sport, and also has a bright future. I wouldn't want to come across as pessimistic. However, the road we take from today towards that bright future could prove very rocky for some, or all, parties.

A greater number of competitive international rugby teams will be wonderful for the game but money won't automatically follow. After all, as I mentioned in my previous post, Scotland (currently IRB ranked 9th) just played Samoa (10th) and the best coverage anyone not at the ground could expect was a slightly dodgy ustream feed shared through the Facebook page of the Samoa Tourism Authority.

That's two of the top 10 rugby nations, in a highly-competitive match. It's not as if Samoa have just come good. They have put in solid performances at World Cups, have one of the top international Sevens teams, and several of their players are familiar names on club circuits around the world.

Examples like that suggest union administrators haven't really got their act together marketing the game outside traditional showpiece events. Given that the financial health of rugby in many countries is geared around internationals, it's a pretty poor performance.

I'm fairly confident that there will be more revenue knocking around at that level as part of rugby's bright future, but it certainly isn't going to arrive fast enough at this rate. If national administrators want to keep wealthy clubs in line - which is partly what the current dispute is all about - they need to be doing a far better job themselves.

The current stance of most unions is to rely heavily on money generated around the two major hemisphere competitions, along with hosting touring sides. There's very little room left in the calendar for anything else. We're already scheduling Tests outside the IRB window and John O'Neill in Australia has a penchant for proposing one-off matches at the drop of a hat to fill the ARU kitty.

At some point, the international game as a whole has to go one step back to go two steps forward if we want to grow the game. Not in the immediate future, but not too far off. We'll lose something that we currently hold dear to make way for something else. That shouldn't surprise us. After all, as I pointed out, we've already effectively lost the Baa-Baas of old. Barbarians matches, with leading northern players facing southern touring sides are popular with fans, players and broadcasters but that hasn't stop them from disappearing.

The reason we will have to lose something, is because the game can only grow at Test level if more international teams become consistently competitive. This means the top teams will have to play them more. Since the calendar is limited, they'll be in place of other fixtures. The downside is that crowds and TV audiences can be slow to take to unfamiliar opponents. Scotland drew attendance of 18,290 for their 2010 match against Samoa in Aberdeen. Not terrible, but not greatly encouraging, and only half the number who went to Murrayfield to watch South Africa. Would Georgia or Russia draw more than Samoa?

And rugby has to do more than just fit in a couple of one-off Tests. New teams will need to be incorporated into more formal competition. Can we turn the Six Nations into a Seven or Eight Nations? Not easily: we might end up with two groups, where teams don't play everyone each season. If we did this though, it could mean some of the longest-standing international fixtures in the game no longer become regular annual events. That wouldn't be good for near term cashflow. Even England would struggle to draw the same crowd for Georgia as they do for more traditional rivals.

If, instead, teams do play everyone in an expanded competition, then matches will have to be lost elsewhere. Fewer Autumn Internationals; no summer tours; no British Lions; perhaps make a move to a global season. Take your pick. All those options imply sacrificing known revenue.

Another idea occasionally suggested, its to have a "B" Five or Six Nations with Spain, Portugal, Russia, Georgia, Romania and whoever else looks promising. Maybe. We already have the similar-looking Nations Cup, so the idea only makes sense if it connects with the main Six Nations in some way. Are any of the current Six Nations really prepared to countenance some kind of relegation which would see them facing these other teams instead of the usual line-up? It would be a big financial hit for any of them.

The real scope for rugby to develop revenue between now, and some future date when we have we have more competitive international teams, is through club and provincial rugby.

How are we doing on that front? It's a mixed bag. The crowds at some Rabo games, for instance, are a real worry. We can argue the reasons for the indifference but the buck stops with the unions. Those money-grubbing PRL clubs introduced double-headers as long ago as 2004. WRU chief executive Roger Lewis is quoted eight years later saying they seem like a good idea.

Why did it take the PRL to work out that BT was interested in laying out good money for rugby broadcast rights? Why was the ERC so set on just re-signing with SKY with a minor bump in payments? That doesn't seem to demonstrate a high level of commercial competence.

The RFU has stepped in to say that that PRL has been presumptuous in selling TV rights beyond 2014. Leave aside the legal debate on that point. I'm more interested in when on earth they thought would be the right time to have explored some options. 2014 isn't that far away. If the RFU had planned to claim back rights from the PRL, this should have been a major agenda point at the end of the World Cup.

The PRL has proposed turning the Amlin, or some other second-level European competition, into a more attractive package. Whatever you think about their motives and conduct, that's surely a good idea. Why wasn't anyone else thinking harder about how to do this?

The more the unions overlook developing revenue opportunities elsewhere, the more they revert to trying to squeeze extra dough out of the international calendar to make ends meet, with the associated problems mentioned above.

A healthy, well-supported club and provincial environment gives rugby the scope to develop deeper international competition. It means the sport won't be so hostage to the fortunes of the national sides. At it stands, interest in the game suffers far too much when national sides aren't going well. That's just not sustainable. Teams will go through bad patches, and we can't all be in the top five. There's a lot to dislike about the way football is organized but the sport retains good levels of support even when the international sides fail.

This takes a lot of work. I think a good deal is being done, especially at youth level, but rugby won't just sell itself. If you look back at the early days of ESPN in America, they picked up broadcast rights for college football games because they couldn't compete for NFL and MLB contracts. The network threw resources at promoting what they had, and turned into into a powerhouse offering.

Broadcast media has an advertising problem right now. We don't gather to watch top dramas, comedies and variety shows in the way we used to. We watch them at different times, on different platforms. Some of the ways we now watch aren't geared for advertisers at all. The one area of programming we do still reliably turn up together to watch is live sport. It's an edge which all professional sports should know about.

Rugby needs to work more closely with whichever broadcasters they choose, so they have similar incentives to build momentum for the sport. Any fool can get sponsors and advertisers for a Lions tour. We want to see an environment where the likes of Scotland vs Samoa, Amlin matches, Sale vs London Welsh, Dragons vs Connacht, are all better commercial propositions because there's deeper interest in the game.

I'd be a lot happier having a discussion about the corrupting influence of money if the sport was actually in danger of having too much to worry about. As it stands, there's more risk that squabbles over the existing pie will do more damage to rugby's soul than anything in the minds of PRL and LRF owners.

Great piece Rugby Fan

johnpartle wrote:Great piece Rugby Fan

Cheers.

To be honest. I'm a bit disappointed by the coverage in the rugby press of this dispute. There's very little analysis of how the various parties have come to this impasse and far too much second-hand gossip. You don't particularly want the best sports reporters to have to double up as business analysts, but it would be nice if even a couple of them showed they had a better grasp of what's at stake for all sides.

Inviting a big media contract and taking european rugby away from the unions and into the hands of commercial enterprise is very unlikely to encourage anything but big money draws. I would expect it to only help those at the top.

I can't see it enabling the spread of the game, or that it improve the game at lower levels. Why would anyone at the PRL care about the welfare of the game outside the 12 members of their premiership gang.

maestegmafia wrote:Inviting a big media contract and taking european rugby away from the unions and into the hands of commercial enterprise is very unlikely to encourage anything but big money draws. I would expect it to only help those at the top.it

The unions still have the votes. The only real change the PRL 'seem' to want is the Regions to have more say than the WRU. I don't see how BT's involvement in the European rugby is any different to BSkyB's involvement.

I can't see it enabling the spread of the game, or that it improve the game at lower levels. Why would anyone at the PRL care about the welfare of the game outside the 12 members of their premiership gang.

Why would any group care about the welfare of the game outside of their group? Either because they know if the game is developed worldwide it can help develop the game locally or because they're greedy bar stewards and want more money.

maestegmafia wrote:Inviting a big media contract and taking European rugby away from the unions and into the hands of commercial enterprise...

It's not corporations versus non-profit organizations and charities. The unions are commercial enterprises. It's also a big reach to say that clubs are demanding total control of European rugby. They are negotiating to do a deal with the unions, not exclude them.

If we don't acknowledge that unions are money-making animals, even more so in the professional era, then we end up creating a caricature of the way rugby is structured.

All the unions say they want to see the development of the game elsewhere, but they can seem troubled when it requires some sacrifice on their part. The traditional rugby powers are happily in favour of other teams getting stronger but, in their own minds, they all think they will remain at the top table and have a calendar full of fixtures against top sides. Their dream scenario is where rugby keeps getting richer but relative positions stay roughly stable. It's possible the future plays out that way but not very likely. Sport rarely develops in straight line trajectories.

There are good reasons why the PRL has a stake in the further development of rugby outside their own world. For one, it would bring access to wider range of lucrative fixtures and raise the value of media contracts. It would also increase the player pool. Current visa regulations tend to demand that an import has international experience (unless they are EU citizens or otherwise entitled to work in the UK). Better international teams elsewhere means more higher quality players to consider.

Such considerations certainly don't mean the PRL occupies any moral high ground. Rather, they demonstrate how meaningless it is to try to frame the debate in those terms from the start.

[quote="HammerofThunor"]
The unions still have the votes. The only real change the PRL 'seem' to want is the Regions to have more say than the WRU. I don't see how BT's involvement in the European rugby is any different to BSkyB's involvement.
[quote]

The PRL want full control Without the Unions interference. The unions are profit making organisations but their accountability is not private. The PRL can want regional Rugby Wales, (our PRL) to have more control but it will not happen and shouldn't, for the good of the game.

90% of the financial trouble the regions were in was due to bad management at the regions completely outside of the WRU.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Why would any group care about the welfare of the game outside of their group? Either because they know if the game is developed worldwide it can help develop the game locally or because they're greedy bar stewards and want more money.

The Celtic teams let Italy join their league to help Italian rugby, they have improved. We have no benefit financially or otherwise from their inclusion.

The only thing threatening the Celtic league is the attitude some teams have towards it, look at last nights game Connacht vs Leinster.

IMO the English clubs are doing the right thing the HC needs to be drastically changed as it is a farce.

HERSH wrote:The only thing threatening the Celtic league is the attitude some teams have towards it, look at last nights game Connacht vs Leinster.

IMO the English clubs are doing the right thing the HC needs to be drastically changed as it is a farce.

You're wrong there. Leinster were missing Dom Ryan, Rhys Ruddock, Hudson, Strauss, Boss, Reddan, Luke Fitzgerald, Dave Kearney, Flanagan, Sean O'Brien, Eoin O'Malley due to being injured. After 20 min Quinn Roux and Gordon D'Arcy had to go off injured.

Connacht smelt blood and went for the kill. They played very well. They've a stronger squad this season and were already tough to beat at home.

Two words.

Dan Parks.

Says it all really, the league is a joke.

Tell that to Quins HERH!!!

maestegmafia wrote:The Celtic teams let Italy join their league to help Italian rugby, they have improved. We have no benefit financially or otherwise from their inclusion.

Regional Rugby Wales chief executive Stuart Gallacher said: "We have been supporting this move for some months.

"We are always looking to extra revenue and the Italians give us all two extra home games each and, given time, the Italians will be a force to be reckoned with in our league and it will make the league much more competitive. "


The Italians were also required to pay for the right to join the league - I can't recall how much, around 3 or 4 million per year I think it was. For a move with no financial benefit... the Celts made a decent little profit out of Italian rugby.

HERSH wrote:The only thing threatening the Celtic league is the attitude some teams have towards it, look at last nights game Connacht vs Leinster.

IMO the English clubs are doing the right thing the HC needs to be drastically changed as it is a farce.

Except winning it... they've been leaving that business to other folks recently as they concentrate on counting how many of their population watch TV.

snoopster wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The Celtic teams let Italy join their league to help Italian rugby, they have improved. We have no benefit financially or otherwise from their inclusion.

Regional Rugby Wales chief executive Stuart Gallacher said: "We have been supporting this move for some months.

"We are always looking to extra revenue and the Italians give us all two extra home games each and, given time, the Italians will be a force to be reckoned with in our league and it will make the league much more competitive. "


The Italians were also required to pay for the right to join the league - I can't recall how much, around 3 or 4 million per year I think it was. For a move with no financial benefit... the Celts made a decent little profit out of Italian rugby.

Fair point snoopster..!

Stuart Gallacher did a great bit of spin on the situation. But the Irish and scots were very concerned about the financial effects of including the Italians. Which I think is mentioned in the same article you quoted.

I know that the Italians bought their place but it wasn't a large or substantial fee. Certainly not in comparison to what the PRL are talking about with BT. The Italians certainly wouldn't have been able to buy their way in to another European league like the top14 for example with that amount. They would have been lucky to have had any interest.

Clearly, the Italians had to buy their way in, and of course the Scots, Irish and Welsh weren't unanimous about including them in the Magners (as it was then).

In fact, it's worth looking back at some of the coverage of those discussions to compare it with what we are reading about the Heineken talks now. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8550696.stm

"Scottish teams Edinburgh and Glasgow could be kicked out of the Magners League by their Welsh and Irish counterparts. The Celtic nations have fallen out over proposals for two Italian teams to enter the competition from next season. A no-vote could prompt Irish and Welsh chiefs to discard the Scots. But a Scottish Rugby Union spokesman denied any such threat has been made to their two teams, saying it was "completely without foundation...Constructive discussions between all three unions are on-going."

....Scrum V has been told that all four Welsh regions and all four Irish provinces want the Italians...But if the SRU blocks the move, Scrum V understands the Welsh and Irish are considering the possibility of removing Glasgow and Edinburgh from the competition...

Why were the Welsh and Irish so keen? Gareth Jenkins has this to say:

"We, as rugby union people, want to grow the game so I think it's a must"

So it was all about the rugby. Or was it? Jenkins went on:

If [Scotland] could only see the bigger picture, that if it is open to a bigger audience, then the revenue's going to come into the game and undoubtedly help Scottish rugby eventually.

It was, in the end, as much a money decision as a rugby decision. And the unions weren't afraid of using threats and strong-arm tactics on each other. That's well worth remembering in the light of some of the ways the PRL has been depicted in recent coverage.

The Scots had a number of concerns. They feared the Italians had drummed up enough money to make them more competitive than Edinburgh and Glasgow, who were both on shaky ground financially. They held out for a sweeter compensation package and more influence on the governance and administration of the competition. One of their beefs had been that the Scottish teams had usually ended the tournament with away games. They felt this was a disadvantage in close competitions, and hurt their chances.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I can't see it enabling the spread of the game, or that it improve the game at lower levels. Why would anyone at the PRL care about the welfare of the game outside the 12 members of their premiership gang.

Why would any group care about the welfare of the game outside of their group? Either because they know if the game is developed worldwide it can help develop the game locally or because they're greedy bar stewards and want more money.

The Celtic teams let Italy join their league to help Italian rugby, they have improved. We have no benefit financially or otherwise from their inclusion.

Rugby Fan wrote:
It was, in the end, as much a money decision as a rugby decision. And the unions weren't afraid of using threats and strong-arm tactics on each other. That's well worth remembering in the light of some of the ways the PRL has been depicted in recent coverage.

The Money paid annually by the Italian teams to the Celtic teams in the RP12 is about €3million. That would probably just about cover the costs of the Pro12 teams making the 24 flights to and from Italy per season for matches, plus the downturn in profits lost by Italian fans not travelling to away games in the RP12.

€3M is not a financial decision of any great importance. I continue my point that it would be abject/ridiculous to accuse the organisers of the Celtic league of being "greedy bar stewards" rather than Generous for the good of the game by incorporating Italy into our league for the good of their rugby in the future....!

maestegmafia wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I can't see it enabling the spread of the game, or that it improve the game at lower levels. Why would anyone at the PRL care about the welfare of the game outside the 12 members of their premiership gang.

Why would any group care about the welfare of the game outside of their group? Either because they know if the game is developed worldwide it can help develop the game locally or because they're greedy bar stewards and want more money.

The Celtic teams let Italy join their league to help Italian rugby, they have improved. We have no benefit financially or otherwise from their inclusion.

Rugby Fan wrote:
It was, in the end, as much a money decision as a rugby decision. And the unions weren't afraid of using threats and strong-arm tactics on each other. That's well worth remembering in the light of some of the ways the PRL has been depicted in recent coverage.

The Money paid annually by the Italian teams to the Celtic teams in the RP12 is about €3million. That would probably just about cover the costs of the Pro12 teams making the 24 flights to and from Italy per season for matches, plus the downturn in profits lost by Italian fans not travelling to away games in the RP12.

€3M is not a financial decision of any great importance. I continue my point that it would be abject/ridiculous to accuse the organisers of the Celtic league of being "greedy bar stewards" rather than Generous for the good of the game by incorporating Italy into our league for the good of their rugby in the future....!

Rugby Fan wrote:Jenkins went on:

If [Scotland] could only see the bigger picture, that if it is open to a bigger audience, then the revenue's going to come into the game and undoubtedly help Scottish rugby eventually.

This above quote makes it pretty clear that the annual payment is just a sweetner to the real financial incentive of including the Italians from entering a new market and growing the audience.

maestegmafia wrote:... "greedy bar stewards" rather than Generous for the good of the game...

The problem is, that's a false dichotomy. Suggesting there are just two groups in administration - money men vs guardians of rugby - creates a parody of what is actually happening. It's clear that money is very close to everyone's heart.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:... "greedy bar stewards" rather than Generous for the good of the game...

The problem is, that's a false dichotomy. Suggesting there are just two groups in administration - money men vs guardians of rugby - creates a parody of what is actually happening. It's clear that money is very close to everyone's heart.

Money is fundamental to any professional game. The issue is with who you entrust to deal with that money.

Surely you understand that it would be much more important, if you want to stay in any european cup competition, that deals which are brokered together through the organisation that represents those nations, as the ERC have done, is the way forward rather than going it alone as the PRL did.

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:... "greedy bar stewards" rather than Generous for the good of the game...

The problem is, that's a false dichotomy. Suggesting there are just two groups in administration - money men vs guardians of rugby - creates a parody of what is actually happening. It's clear that money is very close to everyone's heart.

Money is fundamental to any professional game. The issue is with who you entrust to deal with that money.

Surely you understand that it would be much more important, if you want to stay in any european cup competition, that deals which are brokered together through the organisation that represents those nations as the ERC have done is the way forward rather than going it alone as the PRL did.

Generally true, but not if the management of that organisation are underselling those rights to everyone's detriment. I don't know what will come of the BT deal, I don't really care who gets the rights, but what it has proven is that the ERC have been found notably wanting in getting the best return from the market for those they represent.

mbernz wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:... "greedy bar stewards" rather than Generous for the good of the game...

The problem is, that's a false dichotomy. Suggesting there are just two groups in administration - money men vs guardians of rugby - creates a parody of what is actually happening. It's clear that money is very close to everyone's heart.

Money is fundamental to any professional game. The issue is with who you entrust to deal with that money.

Surely you understand that it would be much more important, if you want to stay in any european cup competition, that deals which are brokered together through the organisation that represents those nations as the ERC have done is the way forward rather than going it alone as the PRL did.

Generally true, but not if the management of that organisation are underselling those rights to everyone's detriment. I don't know what will come of the BT deal, I don't really care who gets the rights, but what it has proven is that the ERC have been found notably wanting in getting the best return from the market for those they represent.

Best return is a negotiable part of this debate that has been raised a number of times.

BSkyB have offered to pay less, so far, but there may well be other mitigating factors like whether that BT Vision deal will be sustainable and reliable.

BT Vision want to enter a market that BSkyB are the current leader. For the good of rugby's future we have to know that they won't fold like ITV Digital when they entered administration in 2002 or make decisions that would be detrimental to countries involved in the game.

It would be interesting to hear what the ERC's process was in selling the new set of TV rights. Did they put the competition out there and test all possible avenues, or were the bigwigs wined & dined into signing on again with Murdoch? Did they go to the comparison websites or just accept the renewal letter?

I think most of us are even more entrigued how BT Vision and the PRL hooked up? Especially their plans for euro cup rugby.

It may well all be wonderful and as I said before it might be the best thing for rugby since Erica Roe.

But the underhanded cloaked deal and particularly the lack of communication with other countries involved makes many of us highly sceptical of the deal, those involved and their motives.

maestegmafia wrote:

mbernz wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:... "greedy bar stewards" rather than Generous for the good of the game...

The problem is, that's a false dichotomy. Suggesting there are just two groups in administration - money men vs guardians of rugby - creates a parody of what is actually happening. It's clear that money is very close to everyone's heart.

Money is fundamental to any professional game. The issue is with who you entrust to deal with that money.

Surely you understand that it would be much more important, if you want to stay in any european cup competition, that deals which are brokered together through the organisation that represents those nations as the ERC have done is the way forward rather than going it alone as the PRL did.

Generally true, but not if the management of that organisation are underselling those rights to everyone's detriment. I don't know what will come of the BT deal, I don't really care who gets the rights, but what it has proven is that the ERC have been found notably wanting in getting the best return from the market for those they represent.

Best return is a negotiable part of this debate that has been raised a number of times.

BSkyB have offered to pay less, so far, but there may well be other mitigating factors like whether that deal will be sustainable and reliable.

BT Vision want to enter a market that BSkyB are the current leader. For the good of rugby's future we have to know that they won't fold like ITV Digital when they entered administration in 2002 or make decisions that would be detrimental to countries involved in the game.

I think there is a huge difference between ITV Digital & BT Vision. BT Vision has been around since 2006 and is owned by one of the biggest companies in the world, a number of times larger than Sky and considerably larger than ITV has ever been. Plus BT are planning on offering their sport broadcasting through a number of delivery systems apart from BT Vision, you will be able to subscribe through freeview and online, which don't require additional costly packages from the likes of Virgin or Sky, though they have also been negotiating and it is expected it will be available through them as well. Another little plus is that given they are meant to be keen on making some AP games free-to-air, they might well do the same for European games.

Yes it does sound great but why negotiate with just the PRL and not with ERC....?

BT are a huge Internet, Phone and cable provider across europe so their inter international ambitions are more understandable than just English ambitions.

maestegmafia wrote:But the underhanded cloaked deal and particularly the lack of communication with other countries involved makes many of us highly sceptical of the deal, those involved and their motives.

We don't know the attitude of the individual member unions, but we do know the ERC wasn't talking, so the lack of communication can hardly be laid solely at the door of the PRL. There's a reason the French and English clubs served notice.

The decision of the ERC to extend the deal with Sky, knowing that the clubs has served notice, doesn't seem to be an exercise in openness and accountability. Sky also knew that what the French and English had done.

The extension looks more like brinkmanship all round. The ERC appeared to want to assert its authority, while Sky wanted to get any contract that might be on the table, rather than wait for a new ERC deal to be done.

If they waited, the risk would be that the ERC would have a freer hand to seek other broadcast deals or another party could just put in a bid. BT was hardly an unknown. They had already clinched some football rights a few months earlier.

Rugby is rife with undisclosed side deals, vested interests, leaks and briefing through the press. The RFU are as guilty of this as anyone, if not more so. It's not corruption, but rarely is any of it for the good of the game. It's a minor miracle, and to their credit, that the PRL could keep their own negotiations over a new commercial deal confidential.

maestegmafia wrote:Yes it does sound great but why negotiate with just the PRL and not with ERC....?

BT are a huge Internet, Phone and cable provider across europe so their inter international ambitions are more understandable than just English ambitions.

Can we be certain that was the case, maybe the ERC just weren't interested in listening. Hopefully we'll get the full story sometime soon.

maestegmafia wrote:

snoopster wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The Celtic teams let Italy join their league to help Italian rugby, they have improved. We have no benefit financially or otherwise from their inclusion.

Regional Rugby Wales chief executive Stuart Gallacher said: "We have been supporting this move for some months.

"We are always looking to extra revenue and the Italians give us all two extra home games each and, given time, the Italians will be a force to be reckoned with in our league and it will make the league much more competitive. "


The Italians were also required to pay for the right to join the league - I can't recall how much, around 3 or 4 million per year I think it was. For a move with no financial benefit... the Celts made a decent little profit out of Italian rugby.

Fair point snoopster..!

Stuart Gallacher did a great bit of spin on the situation. But the Irish and scots were very concerned about the financial effects of including the Italians. Which I think is mentioned in the same article you quoted.

I know that the Italians bought their place but it wasn't a large or substantial fee. Certainly not in comparison to what the PRL are talking about with BT. The Italians certainly wouldn't have been able to buy their way in to another European league like the top14 for example with that amount. They would have been lucky to have had any interest.

you are most probably right in that - I suspect the same basis would have been applied though, to make sure the sides already in the league don't suffer any financial shortfall as a result of the expansion (or possibly losing two domestic sides, at 10 teams the Celtic League was really the only one in a position to expand). There isn't any spare money floating around in rugby, any nation taking on a loss is likely to find themselves facing bankruptcy.

mbernz wrote:I think there is a huge difference between ITV Digital & BT Vision. BT Vision has been around since 2006 and is owned by one of the biggest companies in the world, a number of times larger than Sky and considerably larger than ITV has ever been. Plus BT are planning on offering their sport broadcasting through a number of delivery systems apart from BT Vision, you will be able to subscribe through freeview and online, which don't require additional costly packages from the likes of Virgin or Sky, though they have also been negotiating and it is expected it will be available through them as well. Another little plus is that given they are meant to be keen on making some AP games free-to-air, they might well do the same for European games.

The biggest difference is that ITV Digital was a subsidiary, set up so that if it went bust ITV wouldn't be liable to cover the debts. BT Vision is a division of BT, if BT vision goes bust then BT is fully liable for the debts... and BT is a much bigger, financially more stable company then SKY despite the inroads Sky has made into BT's share of the phone and internet market over the last few years (which is, I think, BT's motive - Sky has been muscling into BT's markets for a while and BT has finally made the decision to stage a serious fight back, hence buying up a share of the football Premier League coverage and the rugby)

mbernz wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Yes it does sound great but why negotiate with just the PRL and not with ERC....?

BT are a huge Internet, Phone and cable provider across europe so their inter international ambitions are more understandable than just English ambitions.

Can we be certain that was the case, maybe the ERC just weren't interested in listening. Hopefully we'll get the full story sometime soon.

Yes hopefully we will find out. It is the fact that we don't know, the fact that there has been so little revealed that scepticism flies with those who distrust the motives of those who wish to cloud deals that affect the things we care dearly about.

Just something else to add to the H cup debate

UK viewing figures are on barb.co.uk

The Munster v Ulster HEC QF game got about 40% more viewers in the UK than the Sarries v Clermont QF later the same day.

Surly this goes someway to show that TV deals have to be done as a group and not by individuel unions, and money shared accordingly.

IF this happened after the BT deal, would the Munster v Ulster game even have been shown in England?

This little fact highlights, that while Brian Moore points out (figures are not all H-cup related as includes 6 nations, but show a general tend of input x take out y [y being greater than x])

"Irish Rugby Football Union financial statement: “although the Irish TV market contributes only €5 million per annum to the central pot (€3 million to the Six Nations and €2 million to the European Rugby Cup), the other TV markets contribute more, and the Irish Rugby Football Union therefore receives €16 million each year"

It does not take into account how much the Provinces boost the other TV markets. A bigger TV viewership in the UK for 2 Provinces , than for an English team, highlights that the Provinces bring to the table much more than just the viewing rights in Ireland.

Your point is very valid. It wouldn't be a European competition if it was just a few teams from France and England. I think all fans would rather see a European Cup that consists all six of the leading nations in Europe. They all bring something to the table financially. But more importantly their absence would lose far more.

Kingshu wrote:Just something else to add to the H cup debate

UK viewing figures are on barb.co.uk

The Munster v Ulster HEC QF game got about 40% more viewers in the UK than the Sarries v Clermont QF later the same day.

Surly this goes someway to show that TV deals have to be done as a group and not by individuel unions, and money shared accordingly.

IF this happened after the BT deal, would the Munster v Ulster game even have been shown in England?

This little fact highlights, that while Brian Moore points out (figures are not all H-cup related as includes 6 nations, but show a general tend of input x take out y [y being greater than x])

"Irish Rugby Football Union financial statement: “although the Irish TV market contributes only €5 million per annum to the central pot (€3 million to the Six Nations and €2 million to the European Rugby Cup), the other TV markets contribute more, and the Irish Rugby Football Union therefore receives €16 million each year"

It does not take into account how much the Provinces boost the other TV markets. A bigger TV viewership in the UK for 2 Provinces , than for an English team, highlights that the Provinces bring to the table much more than just the viewing rights in Ireland.

Great stat there Kingshu. The English champions didn't even come close to getting the same amount as two Pro 12 teams.