English clubs look for HC decision in May.

A little bit of an update amongst the usual blurb on the various options. It really does look like a case of who is going to blink first and the English and French having to cook up a viable alternative in order to generate compromise.
The Anglo welsh league is one I haven't previously heard muted. May looks like being decision time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9875127/English-clubs-linked-with-southern-hemisphere-Super-Rugby-teams-as-Heineken-Cup-stalemate-deepens.html

These ideas are fanciful. Nothing more. For media consumption only. At least they show creativity in thought. Now, if they could harness this kind of creativity and bring it to the European Cup negotiations, that would be great.

In a serious vein, it does seem to show the time frame to get things done is from the end of the Six Nations to the start of the next season.

Lots of "it's understood" and "it is thought"

I think there are some interesting ideas. I'd suggest an Anglo-French and South African tournament would be the biggest money spinner. I guess it would have to be scheduled for the autumn to avoid clashing with Super Rugby.

Otherwise/also, I quite like the idea of inviting the Welsh in (Welsh rugby certainly needs something to change). They'd have to become full league members, and be prepared to be relegated if it came to it. One way forward would be to have an AP side relegated, have nobody promoted for one year, and then invite Scarlets, Blues and Ospreys in to make a 14 team AP. Dragons could join the Championship. I think two teams should be relegated and promoted each year after that.

The alternative would be a two division AP with 24 sides, and two up, two down.

In either case it would still be possible to go with the AP/Top 14/SA cup competition in the autumn.

The AP is in fantastic shape at the moment, but the top English and Welsh sides playing each other with full strength sides would be brilliant for commercial and public interest.

I think the Welsh element is to scare the SRU and IRFU.

If the Welsh decided to leave the Pro 12 would really struggle, and the Welsh teams would be tempted with a move to the Prem, however I think that they will see their collective strenght is in sticking with the IRFU,SRU and FIR.

If the Aviva teams are starting to think of another competation, will this annoy the ERC, as the first round of talks, everyone agreed they wanted a tournament that involved everyone, and French said they were not looking at alternatives.

I can understand the PLC trying to push the talks on, as it seasm to really have died down, and this is just a ploy currently to get the next round of talks, going again.

I do wonder what the Pro 12 Unions alternatives are?

I do hope the Rabo teams concede a little, the PRL have a little.

It will be interesting to see what happens. i can't see anything happening with the Super Rugby teams though. It certainly would help the Welsh regions finances if they joined the Aviva.

What have the PRL conceeded? anything significant?

all this talk of other cross border competitions is just so much hot air - the IRB and the unions will not sanction it

Are the south africans going to stop playing their club tourney with Aus and NZ?

TJ wrote:What have the PRL conceeded? anything significant?

all this talk of other cross border competitions is just so much hot air - the IRB and the unions will not sanction it

Are the south africans going to stop playing their club tourney with Aus and NZ?

They originally wanted only the top 4 rabo teams to be involved in the Rabo, But changed this to 6, top 4 and 2 others so all countries have repesentation. This was at the request of the Rabo nations.

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:What have the PRL conceeded? anything significant?

all this talk of other cross border competitions is just so much hot air - the IRB and the unions will not sanction it

Are the south africans going to stop playing their club tourney with Aus and NZ?

They originally wanted only the top 4 rabo teams to be involved in the Rabo, But changed this to 6, top 4 and 2 others so all countries have repesentation. This was at the request of the Rabo nations.

It was never top 4, it was top 6, and now they will allow top 4+2, so generous, also it doesn't guarentee all countries, If the Provices finish 1st to 4th, it would leave 2 places for SRU,WRU and FIR, So don't know how they can say 4 +2 would allow all countries to have repesentation.

PRL haven't conceeded anything, but neither have the Rabo Unions. Anyone know when next round of talks are due?

Nathan - not so.

the PRL original proposals did not involve any reduction in the entrants at all. they adopted the reduction of 4 teams to give some common ground with the French. A very opportunistic position to take and one without credibility.

what they have offered is instead of the 6 rabo places being only on merit they will accept one rep from each country plus two on merit. this is an insignificant attempt to look like they are negotiating. Its no honest compromise. An honest compromise would be to share the pain ie if the competition must go to 20 teams - and no one has actually made an argument that stand up for this especially the PRL- then the deal should be 5/5/8 plus 2 winners as the fairest solution. thats a comprimise when every gives a little. to ask for a lot and then ask for a little bit less without conceding anything yourself is no meaningful compromise.

I'm bloody confused now. Kingshu and TJ's both offered different answers?

It could be said that the current setup favours (In PRL's eyes) the the Rabo nations so why would they want to compromise?

Nathan - the reduction in places was taken up by the PRL very early in the process. otherwise Kingshu and I are pretty much the same.

How does it favour Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Italy? they get less places than France or England? England have had their representation increased a few times over the years.

Its not the Rabo nations fault that the English have a rubbish system - Scotland for example built its home structure to work well with the international committments. the PRL want the tail ( the english league) to wag the dog - the HC

TJ wrote:Nathan - the reduction in places was taken up by the PRL very early in the process. otherwise Kingshu and I are pretty much the same.

How does it favour Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Italy? they get less places than France or England? England have had their representation increased a few times over the years.

Its not the Rabo nations fault that the English have a rubbish system - Scotland for example built its home structure to work well with the international committments. the PRL want the tail ( the english league) to wag the dog - the HC

well not really, theres a big difference between having all countries involved and not.

Out of the ERC talks, I think the only think that has come out of it is, all parties have said they want all unions to be involved in the new tournment.

Not much really for nearly a year.

Not really going to get into it, what we think would be fair, and ranting about PLC's ideas because they are playing hardball, as it has been done to death, and its the same arguements.

Personally while the PLC and all the others involved have said that they want a new European cup and all members to be involved it does not harsh that PLC is now saying it will look at alternatives, and may annoy the other unions. However I do agree with it somewhat, as a method of getting the next round of talks started, and a solution put in place.

However I do see that this will drag on and there will be a year with no European rugby, as a comprimise will not be reached in time.

Kingshu - there might be a year without european rugby for the PRL clubs - the rest will run a tourney for sure. This is the most likely outcome I believe - the rest will call the PRLs bluff

If the PRL aren't there, the French won't be either....the French clubs are serious about change this time.
The pool games in two blocks rather than three appears to be a given although not yet conceded as would obviously be part of the quid pro quo. After that is anyone's guess.

I don't think TJ is right is saying it will continue without the English clubs its just something that he would like to see.

My worry is they haven't even got to the TV deals yet, and its a major source of contention, never mind the number of teams, each Union/league enters and format.

Honestly I think the French and English will go a year without European rugby to force the Rabo unions to concede.

While PLC are looking at alternatives, I hope the Pro 12 unions are looking at alternatives also.

Kingshu wrote:If the Aviva teams are starting to think of another competation, will this annoy the ERC, as the first round of talks, everyone agreed they wanted a tournament that involved everyone, and French said they were not looking at alternatives.

The French said they would only look at alternatives if they weren't happy with negotiations (not the same as not looking ever). They also said they wanted it sorted by Christmas so it's highly possible they're open to investigating other competitions now.

But again, there is no new information as of now.

A South African competition is pretty much dead in the water from the outset. The only reason the SARU even pretend to talk is to keep the New Zealanders and Australians on their toes. The Argentinian thing is jusyt hot air at the moment as far as I'm aware. I've not read any quote from the Argentinian Union on the matter.

Most likely for me are, European competition with some changes, Anglo-French Cup, or no cup and an expanded T14 and an Anglo-Welsh league.

Kingshu - Its not what I would like - I just think its the most likely outcome. I do not believe the IRB / unions will sanction a different cvross border competition so then you are into a breakaway type sceario like Packer in cricket.

I still think the most likely outcome is that the PRL are completely isolated and intransigent and when they say " my way or the highway" their bluff will be called

I agree Kingshu, the tv deal has been made contentious even though the English clubs have achieved a better deal than Sky and the R12 Unions get more cash out of it through the HC. It is partly a smokescreen though as I haven't heard any complaints with the French obtaining a bumper deal with Canal+ which includes screening euro games from both comps.

I actually wonder whether a cup knockout with the two French and two English leagues plus some extras to make 64 teams with home and away ties would bring something different. There would be some cricket scores but some giant killing too which would be a fun tournament. Cornish pirates v Toulouse anyone?!

To win it you would still perhaps play nine games with quarters, semi and final as one off games, which would be the same as the HC but would free up more teams as they get knocked out earlier on rather than sometimes meaningless pool games.

I digress.....a bit like the article.....

Recwatcher - thats a non starter unless the PRL / French union are lying - as one of their objectives is apparently to stop the mismatches and why they rejected out of hand the counter proposal for amalgamating the amlin and HC with it splitting after the groups to cup and bowl and shield comps - apparantly too many mismatches

TJ, I was just simply wondering aloud on what I would quite like but as you succinctly put it - I agree, it is a non starter.

TJ wrote:Kingshu - Its not what I would like - I just think its the most likely outcome. I do not believe the IRB / unions will sanction a different cvross border competition so then you are into a breakaway type sceario like Packer in cricket.

I still think the most likely outcome is that the PRL are completely isolated and intransigent and when they say " my way or the highway" their bluff will be called

Why would the English allow themselves to become completely isolated? The English and French clubs have a lot in common. This is happening because the French want to see change just as much as the English. I think Kingshu is right, I can imagine the French and the English taking a year out to see how the Pro12 sides cope and react. This would probably mean an Anglo-French competition and would allow the AP sides to put a firm proposal to the Welsh sides to see if they want in (including into the Anglo-French). I don't see the Welsh Regions currently have anything to lose from joining the AP (apart from the Dragons).

It's a very strange situation - the English and French have the stronger negotiating position and less to lose, but the Pro12 sides as a block refuse to move. This could end very badly for the Irish and Scottish sides.

It could just as easily end very badly for England as it did when they did this in 1999 then came crawling back to the HC in 2000.

Interview with Barney Francis, Sky Sports MD.

By Simon Briggs 17 Feb 2013

If Sky Sports is the Manchester United of sports broadcasting – the company with the biggest name and the glitziest properties – then it is about to face a challenge from a brash new rival whose budget, according to one leading presenter, is “practically limitless”.

The name of this Manchester City-style challenger is BT Vision. Two sports channels will launch in August with a package encompassing 18 high-profile Premier League matches, exclusive rugby rights to the Aviva Premiership and the women’s tennis tour.

BT’s on-screen talent will be led by Jake Humphrey, who is rumoured to be on a deal worth more than £750,000 per year, and woman of the moment Clare Balding. Their production will be done in the media centre at the Olympic Park in Stratford, where they propose to build no fewer than three studios and 20 edit suites. You cannot mistake their ambition.

“Ultimately BT Vision is just a way for BT to fight the battle for broadband customers,” says a rival broadcasting executive. “Sky have millions of people signed up on package deals – TV, phone, broadband – which makes them a target. And while they have seen off other rivals in the past, like ITV Digital and Setanta, this is different. I think BT have got them rattled.”

Barney Francis, Sky Sports managing director, looks anything but rattled as he receives Telegraph Sport in his glass-fronted office in Isleworth, west London. Dressed in jeans and a velvety blue waistcoat, he leans back in his chair, places his hands behind his head, and surveys the eight giant TV screens that beam out every second of his channels’ output.

“We don’t consider ourselves as buyers or renters of sports right,” he says, as if the idea of a wallet-waving shoot-out with BT is beneath him. “We consider ourselves in partnerships with all these guys. I had lunch with [England and Wales Cricket Board chairman] Giles Clarke yesterday.

There was not anything specific on the agenda, but it’s important that we have regular conversations about how to push the sport of cricket.

“It sounds a glib thing to say but it’s not just the money that makes a successful property: it’s the promotion, the airtime, the marketing, the oxygen around it.
"We don’t just buy the rights, put the blue-riband event on TV and move onto the next thing. We’re working with people all the time, whether it be through Sky Sports News or our digital division, trying to create oxygen around all the good work the sporting bodies are doing.”

Francis has hit on something here. If you want to reach the widest possible audience — a priority for the Football Association with the FA Cup, and the various home unions with Six Nations rugby — then you go free-to-air. If you want promotion and investment, Sky are the masters of pushing their own product. Just look at Jim White and transfer deadline day.

The recent women’s World Cup is a different sort of example. Before the tournament, Sky generated front-page headlines through a media day where batsman-wicketkeeper Sarah Taylor revealed that she intends to play for the men’s 2nd XI at Sussex. Once it had started, they were delighted by the sheer quality of the action.

“Go back to 2004,” Francis says, “and there was a women’s ODI at Northampton where Michael Holding commentated on a half-hour slot and there wasn’t a run scored.

"Contrast that with what’s been happening in India over the last couple of weeks. We would like to claim a little bit of the credit because I think our investment in the ECB has helped them fund the development of the women’s game.”

Sky’s interest in the women’s World Cup is not feigned. During our interview, a key England wicket fell and the groans could be heard across the top floor of their hangar-sized office. Yet it is stretching a point to suggest that this tournament is driving dish sales, or persuading customers to fork out a £300-plus annual fee.

This is where the Premier League comes in. And why it was essential that Sky held on to the lion’s share of the rights when they went up for auction in June. Up until that moment, BT Vision had kept their sporting ambitions under wraps, and they came in on the blind side with a jaw-dropping offer: £2 billion for 116 matches.

Sky were obliged to lift their own bid to £2.3 billion over three years, some £500,000 more than they paid in 2009. (Even so, the hike across all their sports rights packages still makes up a negligible four per cent of Sky’s annual spend of £2.3 billion on all their programming — sports, arts and drama.)

So will BT’s deep pockets continue to push up the value of sports rights across the board? “The truth is you never know,” Francis says. “The sports market ebbs and flows. But what is crystal clear is that sports that are in long-term partnerships benefit over the long term.

"Sports that take a bit more money in the good times absolutely lose out over the course of a 10-year period. It’s jam for today, as opposed to taking a broader, more long-term perspective.”

Sky know all about long-term perspective. In the first couple of years after their launch in the late Eighties, the joke went that more people had seen the Loch Ness monster than one of their programmes.

Yet that was before the ground-breaking deal with the Premier League in 1992, and the various refinements that they then introduced to our sports coverage: things like Steadicam, ultra slow-motion and that deceptively simple trick of putting the scoreline and clock in the top corner of the screen.

But is the same energy still flowing through their programming now that Sky have become – in the words of former FA executive director David Davies – the “establishment of sports broadcasting? Or, as many industry rivals argue, have they been sidetracked by the loss-leading investment in 3D (which is still only available in 400,000 homes) and the creation of tablet apps to run alongside the main TV?

“That’s a fascinating view,” Francis fires back, “because if you look at what’s changed in the last year, we’ve won the F1 rights and created a new channel for it, the first of its kind in the world. There’s tons of innovation in our coverage: take the 3D virtuals of the cars, which really get under the side-pods of each car.

Then look at Gary Neville, and how we’ve moved our football coverage on.
"To start with, people weren’t particularly keen to hear what Gary had to say because he wasn’t the Premier League’s most popular player. But right now we are flooded with people saying ‘You’ve proved us wrong’. There are two prominent former England players in different sports who both saw what Gary was doing and came to me and said: ‘We need to raise our game.’”

Evolution is in progress here. Yes, the coming of BT Vision is likely to further fragment our sporting landscape. But it should also bring back some genuine competition to the marketplace.

Sky have had most things their own way since 2004. That was the year when Greg Dyke resigned, leaving the BBC without a single sports fan among their senior management.

Now Francis has a new rival in BT Vision’s dapper chief executive Marc Watson, a lawyer and Luton Town fan who likes to make grand statements. “We saw in rugby the opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level,” he said, after clinching rights to the Aviva Premiership.

With that £2.3 billion Premier League outlay to digest, Sky are sure to face some interesting choices in their next round of rights negotiations. But then, as Manchester United are finding, the arrival of a noisy neighbour can sometimes be a useful spur.

Artful_Dodger wrote:It could just as easily end very badly for England as it did when they did this in 1999 then came crawling back to the HC in 2000.

Were the French with them at the time?

No doubt the English clubs can't force change on their own, but the English and French clubs certainly can.

All the talk of new leagues with the French or South Africans or Welsh is very theoretical, we'll see if the PRL will put their money were their mouth is and leave the HC on the basis of a new league with the French who for me sound pretty coy on leaving the HC, as they've said the ideal solution for them is agreement on the HC.

Dave the PRL are already isolated having infuriated everyone else including the French - and the common ground between the two is much less than you think from what I know.

No other cross border competitions will be sanctioned by the unions so unless teams split from the unions no new competitions will appear.

The French are willing to compromise and are acting honestly. The PRL want complete control and are not acting as honest brokers. All these "eaks" to the press of possible alternatives - non of which have any substance at all are a clear indicator of this. the PRL have backed themselves into a corner and have totally underestimated the opposition they face.

But can you back up any of those claims? I can't see why it is in French clubs' interests to find themselves dealing only with the union backed entities of the Pro12 and cut adrift the other club grouping in Europe which can stand up to them.

I also question whether the unions have the legal right to block cross-border competitons.

The leaks are just pointing out that something has to change.

Artful_Dodger wrote:All the talk of new leagues with the French or South Africans or Welsh is very theoretical, we'll see if the PRL will put their money were their mouth is and leave the HC on the basis of a new league with the French who for me sound pretty coy on leaving the HC, as they've said the ideal solution for them is agreement on the HC.

I'm sure the PRL wiould say (and mean) that the ideal solution for them is the continuation of the HC. But not at any cost.

TJ and Dodger I have been saying the same thing for months.

This deal with BT is apparently only months away and there is so little revealed everyone appears highly sceptical. Its initial announcement was so far outside of the RFU, who run the game in England not the clubs rep the PRL, that the RFU had to enquire whether what the PRL and BT had announced was even legal.

Still a myriad of ifs, maybe and when comments coming out of the England camp supplanted in these theoretical tournaments with any nation who they deem might be unhappy enough with their current lot that they might just jump into bed with them.

BT wanted to "own English Rugby" at the moment they don't even know what they might be buying.

Why does something have to change - because a small number of ego driven english club owners want it to? The rest can and will reach a compromise with the french.

the french have sated that the actions of the PRL are unacceptable in attempting to sell to BT the rights to games they do ot own the rights for and slated them for the lack of consultation over this. they have also stated they are not interested in other competitions.

The RFU are also angry with the PRL.

thi is all public knowledge and information

Unless the PRL back down they will end up isolated

What's the absolute worst thing which can happen to the English clubs?
The worst thing is the status quo remains for another few years. Therefore, the English clubs have nothing to lose. In fact, they can't lose. Only they simply won't gain as much as they want and think is fair.

And, since the French clubs joined the English clubs in wanting to negotiate a new agreement and have not changed that stance, it is plausible they will continue to push for the re-negotiation.

TJ wrote:Why does something have to change - because a small number of ego driven english club owners want it to? The rest can and will reach a compromise with the french.

the french have sated that the actions of the PRL are unacceptable in attempting to sell to BT the rights to games they do ot own the rights for and slated them for the lack of consultation over this. they have also stated they are not interested in other competitions.

The RFU are also angry with the PRL.

thi is all public knowledge and information

Unless the PRL back down they will end up isolated

I think you might be talking about the French Union, rather than the French clubs? I'd like to see the quote where they say they aren't interested in other compeitions if you can find it?

If PRL get isolated from the French clubs then there is little chance of anything changing. They must know this, and I would expect will prevent it happening. I can't see why French clubs would think the current qualification system is fair, any more than the AP sides think it is. I also can't see why the French sides won't want a bigger slice of the generated revues, just as the AP sides do. The English and French sides see the HC as a contest between leagues, where-as the ERC/Rabo sides see it as a contest between Unions.

I think the RFU would rather this wasn't happening. I also think they are reluctant to interfere, particularly with a home WC coming up.

The french do not see it as a contest between leagues as it is not. Its a contest beween clubs and each UNION has a specific number of entries and its up to the unions how they select their entrants.

The PRL will not win this one and they will not be forgiven if the wreck the HC in thier attempt to control european rugby. The PRL are acting in the interests of the owners of the english clubs - no one else. Not the players, the unions, the spectators. Its a selfish power grab and to the vast detriment of the game and must be resisted. Fortunatly evbery other stakeholder realises this which is why the PRL have only lukewarm support from the french and none from elsewhere.

A very quick google gives this. Remeber the english papers are not fair brokers in this - they only report what the PRL release to them

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.

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".

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/story/170315.html

As I said - PRL are isolated and will either have to climb down or walk away

This is not so simple. The French joined the English is pushing to open negotiations on a new structure or rules, no?

As I said, the English and French clubs can't lose. The worst thing for them is the status quo. The best is something they view as better.

Any talk of other countries is negotiation and fluff. I would ignore it as it has no meaning.
Everyone wants a European Cup. And a European Cup we will have. Not really worth getting emotional about.
It will be good to get this behind us, I must admit.

doctor_grey wrote:

As I said, the English and French clubs can't lose.

Apart from looking like complete plonkers in the case of PRL........ if after all there big talk of deals with BT and new competitions unless there are changes, the status quo remains.

Doctor Gray MY understanding is the English joined the French - using them as a stalking horse. Most of the French aims can be accommodated without too much difficulty - only the wish to reduce the number of sides cannot. Whereas the PRL aim to control the european cup and mould it in their favour which is unacceptable. Dodsen the SRU president is very clear that this is a power grab ( control the revenue you control the competition)

“We’re talking about a much wider issue here: the fight for control of professional rugby in the northern hemisphere,” said Dodson. “It has to be seen in that context.

“There is a lot of noise being made in the papers in England, and a lot of selective leakage around the subject, but I can assure you that the Celtic and Italian nations are working incredibly hard to make sure that the PRL and LNR [the French Ligue Nationale de Rugby] do not just steamroller their proposals through.”

“If anything PRL are even more isolated than they were at the outset of these talks,” he said. “The notion of gunboat diplomacy has back-fired and I think you will find this will be no walk in the park for the English clubs.

Of course the English clubs ( and french) can lose - they can end up with no european rugby. The french clearly will compromise, If the PRL do not then its more than possible that the next european cup will be without PRL teams in it. Maybe championship teams, maybe no english teams. Its certainly possible unless they back away from their unacceptable position.


If the PRL go for a breakaway to get an unsanctioned cross border competition England could be thrown out of the RWC and 6N They had to back down before over TV rights for the 6N under threat of this before.

The PRL are looking for a football champions league model. No longer do the champions of smaller leagues get automatic entry to this and its dominated by multiple clubs from the big leagues

TJ I first raised this last summer and a delegation of French club presidents proposed the changes and sought support from the English clubs, which they got as the English clubs were looking for more tv revenue - similar to the Canal+ tv deal the french obtained.

The R12 have already tried to divide and conquer and they failed. They may well try again but it does not appear the clubs will back down at what they perceive as Union bully tactics around refusal for any negotiation on the key points.

Have you read the quotes from the French above?

The main French points can be addressed easily apart from the reduction in clubs - and even that could be if the pain is shared. The PRL have not even been consistent on this - their original position was 24 clubs - 8/8/8 they only adopted the 20 club position to try to ally with the french clubs.

The PRL are isolated. From both the French union and the clubs and their own union the RFU.

Remember the telegraph is acting as a mouthpiece for the PRL - it is not taking an even handed stance.

There are only two ways this will go. the PRL back down or they leave the HC. The french clearly will remain and only one group is acting as bullies here - the PRL with their intransigent attitude and might is right negotiating position.

To add the Irish bottom line to this discussion

They will not agree to any decision that doesn't guarantee 2 places and allows a 3rd team to qualify on merit (league position)

The 2+2+1+1 breakdown for the Pro12 is a complete no-no as far as they are concerned

If the need is imperative to reduce the number of entrants then why does all the reduction have to come from 4 unions with 2 unions having no reduction? the two unions with the biggest representation already?

if 20 teams is a must ( and I have seen no credible case made for it) then 5/5/8 + two winners shares the pain and is fair. 6/6/6 is not

Woolff does not represent the french clubs, the presidents want him removed. I do negotiations for a living, you always start with conciliatory tones. The french clubs voted unanimously for change before approaching the English clubs. If the R12 position is clear, it won't mean much if there is no competition in 15 months time.

The BT deal is a game changer as they could easily brush Sky out of the way and if the R12 don't accept the extra cash from the deal, it will go towards whatever the clubs decide as an alternate competition. It is a win win for the clubs, the french have already got their TV deal.

From a purist viewpoint I don't really like this horsetrading but the economics are unarguable.

Recwatcher wrote:From a purist viewpoint I don't really like this horsetrading but the economics are unarguable.

Agree. The horsetrading, especially with something important to us like the Rugby, is difficult to swallow at time. Comments on all sides become more extreme and only serve to get people's blood up. And to no good end. The apparent lack of formal discussion is uncomfortable.

The reason why the English and French clubs can't 'lose' here is the absence of European Rugby in 2013 and after will cost everyone, all sides, money. And whether anyone thinks the goals or positions of the English, French or Rabo clubs/teams/franchises/unions are smart or not, no one wants to lose the money which European Rugby brings in. A European competition without English clubs, for instance, will bring in significantly less money. Most tv revenue is based upon potential viewers. Losing the big England market will make it smaller. Sky, or whomever, will pay a lot less, in total and per team, without them. As Recwatcher says, the economics are unarguable.

And that is why I am confident we will have European Rugby. There is too much to lose for everyone. Everyone wins or everyone loses.

I think the real question is what everyone really wants and if people on all sides are not foolish enough to draw a firm line in the sand.

I really don't think the BT deal, and as Rec says it is a gamechanger.

Prev the Unions gave the ERC the right to sell the TV deals, Sky for UK and Ireland, Canal for France not sure about Italy, and abroad. Money was split RFU 25% FRU 25% rest gainsed about 13% each.

What the BT deals does is Means RFU can sell the League and Europe together, but they can say 75% was for league 25% Europe, and keep the majority of it.
The other issue is 4 unions are covered by the same broadcasters, meaning that if one sells to one broadcaster it rules the other 3 out from them, and makes it harder for them to sell thier rights.
Anyone know how PLC want the sale of TV rights abraod split, surly if people buying it in SA to watch the money from that deal should go to the SARU, by thier logic as it is SA viewers?

The other point is to compare this TV deal to others like it.
Spanish football, all the Clubs sell thier own tv deals (they have taken same view as PLC that people are paying to watch their clubs and so deserve the money generated), Barca and Real rake in the money whereas as a newly promoted team has a tiny TV deal and only has 2 games it can sell (home to Barca and Real), as such the Spanish league is a 2 horse race, and Barca and real continue to pull away from the other teams in the leauge, it is now becoming like Scotland used to be.

In contrast the Premier league sells the TV rights as a whole, (taking the the same views as Pro 12 Unions, thats its the product that is selling not the clubs [Man Utd and a few have expressed intrest in selling thier own rights by th esmaller clubs are the ones keeping it as a package) money is devided based on basic payments and League position, (like the way H-cup is). As such the Premier League is the best in Europe with clubs being much more competative from top to bottom, creating a better more competative league that sells.

For me the BT deal would lead to an elite few and a poor competation, ERC selling the rights creates a better competation. I don't think the Pro 12 Unions will back down on this point, and the rights are to be sold as a product and divided, meaning deadlock.

All the talk of what should happen, what we would like to happen and what's fair for different sides is a bit irrelevant, frankly.

BT needs premium content for its strategy to work, and is prepared to pay through the nose for it. As a result, the PRL has a deal that means they will be better off even if there is no European competition after next year.

If what's been said above is true, then the French are in a similar position. They can survive without a pan-European competition, at least in the short term.

The Rabo teams, I very much suspect, will find it much more difficult. Firstly, as has been said above, the value of their TV rights is much, much lower without the English and French clubs and audiences. Secondly, without the PRL and FFR, they've essentially got a Rabo cup.

Arguing the rights and wrongs is a bit pointless, because both sides have some merit to their argument:
- The IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIR want to ensure a minimum level of representation for their teams. That can't be accommodated without the Rabo league having a disproportionate number of slots compared to other leagues
- The PRL and FFR want to ensure that everyone has to work to qualify for the competition. That can't be accommodated without the Rabo having a similar number of slots to the AP and Top 14
- The Rabo teams want to protect the shares of revenue that they get today. These were agreed when the underlying unions had separate leagues
- The PRL and FFR want to distribute the revenue based on the number of teams entering the competition, reflecting the structure of the leagues today
- Essentially, the IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIR are trying to protect a position that they see as essential to sustaining the professional game in their countries
- The PRL and Top 14 are trying to reach a position where they receive a share of revenues more in line with the number of teams and amount of cash they bring to the party, which their member clubs see as essential to sustaining their own financial viability.

There's no way to square that particular circle without some compromise on both sides, but the Rabo unions have given no public indication that they're prepared to move at all.

The important questions are:
1) If the PRL walk away, will the Top 14 do the same? It's not clear, but I would guess that they will because their schedule is already overloaded and they want change
2) If the Rabo nations are on their own, can they hold out without compromise longer than the PRL and Top 14 clubs can? No. See above for why.

Kingshu, I would agree that the R12 have realised it was a mistake to let France do their own deal. As a consequence the changes wanted by the french are about structure rather than finance. The English clubs believe their contribution is both undervalued and allocated unfairly. They have proved this with the BT deal which is also a win for the RFU which over time will bring less pressure for EPS payments.
It will be interesting to see if a R12 Union breaks rank because there is in theory post the 2014 season nothing to stop them brokering a deal with BT.

Have you got a link about the French doing their own deal?

ERC do the tv deals for French Euro games, if France has done its own this is another point of contention.

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

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

This point hasn't even been reached in the talks but ERC claim PLC didn't have the rights to the European games as they granted them to ERC, same would apply to the French - who to my knowledge haven't broken that agreement.

Only so far the PLC have broken that agreement, if French have can you supply a link, as this would further fragment the ERC.

Kingshu wrote:Have you got a link about the French doing their own deal?

ERC do the tv deals for French Euro games, if France has done its own this is another point of contention.

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

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

This point hasn't even been reached in the talks but ERC claim PLC didn't have the rights to the European games as they granted them to ERC, same would apply to the French - who to my knowledge haven't broken that agreement.

Only so far the PLC have broken that agreement, if French have can you supply a link, as this would further fragment the ERC.

wasnt that meeting after france and england served notice?