Future European Comp

First topic message reminder :

Progress made when ERC not involved.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/20/heineken-cup-tv-deal

So some unions giving up participation for money they didn't earn?

No, you said first.

So union's who didn't earn the money give up participation for more of it?

????? Nope...you're drifting. Some clubs who think they have the money to give...didn't earn the money and it isn't theirs.

Poorfour wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

"The deal we have with BT Vision will generate so much extra revenue that even though the money would be split equally between the three leagues, the Celtic countries and Italy will receive more than they do now. They may be getting smaller slices but the cake will be far bigger."

Everyone gets more money... except the English and French each get an 8% increase of the pot and the Irish/Welsh/Scots/Italy lose 17% - seriously who is going to sign up for that?

Let's imagine that at the moment we earn £1000 per month and share it so that you get £500 and I get £500. Then I get a better job and our total pooled income goes up to £2000 per month. I offer to continue to share it with you, as long as I get £1320 and you get £680. It only seems fair to me, because I've got a spouse and 3 kids to feed, and you've only got a spouse and 1 kid.

You may not like it, but not accepting the deal would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Or let's imagine that x and y buy a property on a 50/50 basis. Rental income is £1,000 per month and is shared equally so x gets £500 and Y gets £500.

The current tennant decides he wants to leave. X goes behind Y's back and negotiates a higher rental charge of £2,000 per month with a new tennant.

X has suddenly realised that he has kids to feed so it is only fair that he should receive £1,320 of the income and Y £680!

Unless Y agrees to these terms then X has decided the property cannot be let at all!

For the Pro12 teams it is tantamount to daylight robbery and blackmail at the same time.

Poorfour wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
Let's imagine that at the moment we earn £1000 per month and share it so that you get £500 and I get £500. Then I get a better job and our total pooled income goes up to £2000 per month. I offer to continue to share it with you, as long as I get £1320 and you get £680. It only seems fair to me, because I've got a spouse and 3 kids to feed, and you've only got a spouse and 1 kid.

You may not like it, but not accepting the deal would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Let's say you didn't earn the money? Let's say you didn't get a better job. Let's say it's a loan that was meant to be equally?

BTW...back to money. It's about participation. The money is being used to soothe less participation by certain Nations.

Or participation is given up by certain Nations to get more money

No, let's keep to the "you didn't earn the money" bit first.

Nope, you've lost me. That analogy's been stretched further than it will go. What are you getting at? The BT deal is "earned" money in that PRL will be paid it for providing access to its games. Everything suggests it's a better deal than the one ERC have negotiated with Sky. It certainly isn't a loan.

Now we can argue about whether PRL had the right to go and negotiate the deal, but:
1) It's certain that they had the right to negotiate a deal for their domestic league
2) It's also certain that they've served notice on the current ERC tournaments.
3) It's interesting that ERC have negotiated an extended deal with Sky, but to show what? The current tournaments cease to exist at the end of next season. If they've negotiated the right to show any successor tournament, have they been granted that right by the unions? That wasn't clear from anything I've read.
4) It seems likely that PRL hadn't technically been given the right to negotiate for European competitions by the RFU (who, IIRC, technically control that right). However, if PRL's lawyers have any sense, the deal they've negotiated with BT will say something like "...and if you can give us access to European games, we'll pay you x much extra."

Bottom line is, it's a grey area but a strong negotiating tactic. PRL is offering a better deal for a subset of matches than ERC is offering for the whole caboodle. ERC won't even be able to match the deal it currently has if the English or French are out.

by your reply, you picked me up fine The analogy makes perfect sense. PRL is negotiating with someone else's money. The TV company should not have a vested interest in a stronger hand for English clubs in a European event. The European event is all they care about - coverage of. So PRL saying we have money here to spread around, but on our terms...is a pretty complex half truth that's almost a lie.

Perhaps the Pro12 nations should just go over the head of PRL and start directly negotiating for their share of any European event monies. They are the money men, not the PRL.

SecretFly wrote:????? Nope...you're drifting. Some clubs who think they have the money to give...didn't earn the money and it isn't theirs.

I thought they were provinces, regions, etc not clubs.

And yes the Pro12 unions should negotiate their own deal it would be much easier.

The clubs I referred to? English ones.

Pro12 negotiating their own deal? Glad you agree but of course you realise that would then kill off the conditions of entry put up by English and French clubs. It's the conditions of entry - the participation demands - that animate me. I don't care about the money. Money is generated by participation.

But yes... maybe someone should suggest that all Leagues, and Unions involved in them, should do their own negotiations with BT Vision OR Sky. And come to the table with individual deals. Pro12 could have it's highest bid for games played in Pro12 territory. AP sides would have their English rights deal with BT, and France would have its exclusive rights for France.

That could surely bring in even more funds, and there wouldn't be so much of a need for the concept of sharing deals. (Of course PRL would have to do a little re-negotiation of its BT deal as I'm sure BT would want to pay less for less). And the rules of the competition remain the same.

QED.

Participation is agreed by the unions. If they agreed for less participation I'm sure they had a good reason.

I'm not sure of your point regarding TV deals. If the PRO12 unions (collectively or independently) went away made deals and en tried to up their participation I expect the answer would be non. Although it might not of course. If the PRL got to keep all their TV money it might work out better for them. Most of the the beneficiaries don't actually play in the top level currently anyway. But I imagine unions have thought of that and decided against it because they get more money this was.

What this does show us that if this deal goes ahead the HEC is just a cash cow for the unions

The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

SecretFly wrote:The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

The PRL sold the rights to their home games. The RFU believe they retain them when the ERC participation agreement ends in 2014, the PRL believed they got them in the RFU agreement that the club rights go to the PRL's control. The PRL also sold their league games from after 2015, which they don't currently have. But those TV right agreements are between the RFU and PRL. Nothing to do with anyone else (unless the RFU bring them in). You control the TV rights for games happening in your jurisdiction not for showing games in that area.

The PRL certainly aren't above thinking of the HEC in money terms. But some on here seem to like to pretend that only the clubs do that.

SecretFly wrote:The clubs I referred to? English ones.

Pro12 negotiating their own deal? Glad you agree but of course you realise that would then kill off the conditions of entry put up by English and French clubs. It's the conditions of entry - the participation demands - that animate me. I don't care about the money. Money is generated by participation.

But yes... maybe someone should suggest that all Leagues, and Unions involved in them, should do their own negotiations with BT Vision OR Sky. And come to the table with individual deals. Pro12 could have it's highest bid for games played in Pro12 territory. AP sides would have their English rights deal with BT, and France would have its exclusive rights for France.

That could surely bring in even more funds, and there wouldn't be so much of a need for the concept of sharing deals. (Of course PRL would have to do a little re-negotiation of its BT deal as I'm sure BT would want to pay less for less). And the rules of the competition remain the same.

QED.

IIRC, the BT deal is only for English club games played on English territory - so there'd be no need for renegotiation on that basis. And fundamentally, it is the PRL's money. Yes, BT should not have a vested interest in the shape of the tournament. And they don't. They are offering a deal for coverage of home games played by English clubs. Outside of the ERC tournament rules (which is where the PRL will be in 12 months' time), they've got every right to negotiate that deal.

I'd love to see what would happen if each league negotiated its own deal for home games and kept its own revenues, sharing broadcasts but with a combined financial deal only for the semis and final. I'm pretty sure that the English and French would come out of it earning more per team and more per game than the Rabo unions.

SecretFly wrote:The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

But that's just the point. Under the current split of revenue, it's not a cash cow for the English and French clubs.

They earn less from the HEC than they do from their domestic leagues and the PRL's case the LV= cup. Some of the less well-supported clubs have I believe reported that they actually lose money on HEC games once the additional demands on the squad and travel are taken into account.

Their gripes are that the current split sees some teams receive several times the money that other teams do, and that the Sky deal negotiated by ERC significantly undervalues the tournament. They see the BT deal as fixing the latter problem so that they can even up the amount of money per club increasing everyone's absolute revenue.

Poorfour wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

But that's just the point. Under the current split of revenue, it's not a cash cow for the English and French clubs.

They earn less from the HEC than they do from their domestic leagues and the PRL's case the LV= cup. Some of the less well-supported clubs have I believe reported that they actually lose money on HEC games once the additional demands on the squad and travel are taken into account.

Their gripes are that the current split sees some teams receive several times the money that other teams do, and that the Sky deal negotiated by ERC significantly undervalues the tournament. They see the BT deal as fixing the latter problem so that they can even up the amount of money per club increasing everyone's absolute revenue.

If the BT deal only concerns home English games for European competition, how will it increase everyone's absolute revenue?

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

The PRL sold the rights to their home games. The RFU believe they retain them when the ERC participation agreement ends in 2014, the PRL believed they got them in the RFU agreement that the club rights go to the PRL's control. The PRL also sold their league games from after 2015, which they don't currently have. But those TV right agreements are between the RFU and PRL. Nothing to do with anyone else (unless the RFU bring them in). You control the TV rights for games happening in your jurisdiction not for showing games in that area.

The PRL certainly aren't above thinking of the HEC in money terms. But some on here seem to like to pretend that only the clubs do that.

No...some here don't do that. Some here think they want equal participation in a European event that English and French sides currently have six guaranteed spots in every year. English and French sides...not clubs that anyone in Europe might support. English based and English supported teams... by right...in every European competition... 6 of them.

Others want parity with that..Scotland, Italy too. They want this parity so that they can progress as teams and as individual players who might eventually play for their Nation. They want the same right to have European top competition every year (by right) to hone skills they will need to fill International slots.

And if PRL only came to the table with their own Home games secured by BT then they wouldn't have had much of a negotiating hand, would they? No, they came to the table saying we have money for all of Europe, more money thatn miserable Sky ...but BT must be the platform the games get shown on and the competition rules must be modified to give English sides a better crack of the whip. That's claiming rights to other Nations TV rights that they didn't have. That was their brilliant plan - to have the whole European project bought up and with you to put on the table as your strong negotiating hand.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

But that's just the point. Under the current split of revenue, it's not a cash cow for the English and French clubs.

They earn less from the HEC than they do from their domestic leagues and the PRL's case the LV= cup. Some of the less well-supported clubs have I believe reported that they actually lose money on HEC games once the additional demands on the squad and travel are taken into account.

Their gripes are that the current split sees some teams receive several times the money that other teams do, and that the Sky deal negotiated by ERC significantly undervalues the tournament. They see the BT deal as fixing the latter problem so that they can even up the amount of money per club increasing everyone's absolute revenue.

If the BT deal only concerns home English games for European competition, how will it increase everyone's absolute revenue?

Because, if what's been reported is correct, it's a lot better than the Sky deal. PRL believe they can put enough into the pot that everyone can take more than they get today, even if the Rabo % is reduced. I don't know if that assumes anything about what deal the other teams can get for their home games, but PRL have been pretty confident on this point since the outset.

Poorfour wrote:

Because, if what's been reported is correct, it's a lot better than the Sky deal. PRL believe they can put enough into the pot that everyone can take more than they get today, even if the Rabo % is reduced. I don't know if that assumes anything about what deal the other teams can get for their home games, but PRL have been pretty confident on this point since the outset.

With BT as exclusive platform for all HEC (or whatever it gets called) games? The company that allegedly already signed the deal with only one of the participants before the actual dealing and negotiations even begun?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

But that's just the point. Under the current split of revenue, it's not a cash cow for the English and French clubs.

They earn less from the HEC than they do from their domestic leagues and the PRL's case the LV= cup. Some of the less well-supported clubs have I believe reported that they actually lose money on HEC games once the additional demands on the squad and travel are taken into account.

Their gripes are that the current split sees some teams receive several times the money that other teams do, and that the Sky deal negotiated by ERC significantly undervalues the tournament. They see the BT deal as fixing the latter problem so that they can even up the amount of money per club increasing everyone's absolute revenue.

If the BT deal only concerns home English games for European competition, how will it increase everyone's absolute revenue?

Because the PRL said any money they get from BT for the European games goes into the central pot.

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Because, if what's been reported is correct, it's a lot better than the Sky deal. PRL believe they can put enough into the pot that everyone can take more than they get today, even if the Rabo % is reduced. I don't know if that assumes anything about what deal the other teams can get for their home games, but PRL have been pretty confident on this point since the outset.

With BT as exclusive platform for all HEC (or whatever it gets called) games? The company that allegedly already signed the deal with only one of the participants before the actual dealing and negotiations even begun?

They signed a deal for the home games of any European games the clubs play in. That's it. Unless you've seen something different it's a fabrication that they have the rights for anything else (or hat it's part of the ORL requirements)

That doesn't mean that everyone will get more, particularly as they are also proposing to change the portions?

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Because, if what's been reported is correct, it's a lot better than the Sky deal. PRL believe they can put enough into the pot that everyone can take more than they get today, even if the Rabo % is reduced. I don't know if that assumes anything about what deal the other teams can get for their home games, but PRL have been pretty confident on this point since the outset.

With BT as exclusive platform for all HEC (or whatever it gets called) games? The company that allegedly already signed the deal with only one of the participants before the actual dealing and negotiations even begun?

No, with BT as an exclusive platform for all English club home games. The deal is between BT and PRL and covers a period beyond the end of the current ERC agreement, including the PRL's rights for any future European tournaments. The other leagues can negotiate their own deals, and the PRL has not been negotiating away other people's rights. The grey area is over whether the RFU had or had not delegated to the PRL the right to negotiate its own home games - but that is actually a pretty technical point as there seems to be evidence to support either side.

It's not the way things are done currently. But if the PRL had stuck to the way things are done currently, they would not have any negotiating position since the ERC was refusing to negotiate.

It was suggested everyone would get more. And in the new unsupported suggestions in the guardian said everyone would get more. We have nothing else to work with at the moment.

Fly, all the anger seems to be directed at the PRL for wanting more money. Not at their unions for accepting less participation for more money.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:That doesn't mean that everyone will get more, particularly as they are also proposing to change the portions?

They have repeatedly said that it does, because the BT deal is worth a lot more than the Sky deal - I think over twice as much. (This is basically because Sky, BT, the mobile operators and Virgin are all competing for the same customers with similar packages. BT desperately needs some strong content to pull in subscribers so could afford to bid much higher than Sky because it's a "bet the firm" thing for them).

Poorfour wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:That doesn't mean that everyone will get more, particularly as they are also proposing to change the portions?

They have repeatedly said that it does, because the BT deal is worth a lot more than the Sky deal - I think over twice as much. (This is basically because Sky, BT, the mobile operators and Virgin are all competing for the same customers with similar packages. BT desperately needs some strong content to pull in subscribers so could afford to bid much higher than Sky because it's a "bet the firm" thing for them).

From what I understand, we don't know that's the case at all, as it's impossible to separate out what's for Europe from prem games or LV - even the French clubs, their supposed allies seem unsure of this from what I can discover?

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Because, if what's been reported is correct, it's a lot better than the Sky deal. PRL believe they can put enough into the pot that everyone can take more than they get today, even if the Rabo % is reduced. I don't know if that assumes anything about what deal the other teams can get for their home games, but PRL have been pretty confident on this point since the outset.

With BT as exclusive platform for all HEC (or whatever it gets called) games? The company that allegedly already signed the deal with only one of the participants before the actual dealing and negotiations even begun?

They signed a deal for the home games of any European games the clubs play in. That's it. Unless you've seen something different it's a fabrication that they have the rights for anything else (or hat it's part of the ORL requirements)

The BT deal is for all of Europe, Hammer. That's what we've been told. Not just English AP or English home games in a European competition. To say it's just home games is no negotiating platform to bring with you with the other demands of a change in the structure.

The BT money is the carrot for other European partners to come on board the BT train. BT couldn't, and wouldn't be inclined to, share BT money with Irish or Welsh sides that were using a different contract and a different platform to show their home games. BT money is for all of Europe - a bigger pot for all to share in - provided BT televise the lot.

Anything else just doesn't make sense. The demand is that BT becomes the exclusive platform for European rugby competition - just like Sky are now. They might sell certain rights to other terrestrial channels etc...but they'd control the broadcasting contract for the entire competition(s)

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Because, if what's been reported is correct, it's a lot better than the Sky deal. PRL believe they can put enough into the pot that everyone can take more than they get today, even if the Rabo % is reduced. I don't know if that assumes anything about what deal the other teams can get for their home games, but PRL have been pretty confident on this point since the outset.

With BT as exclusive platform for all HEC (or whatever it gets called) games? The company that allegedly already signed the deal with only one of the participants before the actual dealing and negotiations even begun?

They signed a deal for the home games of any European games the clubs play in. That's it. Unless you've seen something different it's a fabrication that they have the rights for anything else (or hat it's part of the ORL requirements)

The BT deal is for all of Europe, Hammer. That's what we've been told. Not just English AP or English home games in a European competition. To say it's just home games is no negotiating platform to bring with you with the other demands of a change in the structure.

The BT money is the carrot for other European partners to come on board the BT train. BT couldn't, and wouldn't be inclined to, share BT money with Irish or Welsh sides that were using a different contract and a different platform to show their home games. BT money is for all of Europe - a bigger pot for all to share in - provided BT televise the lot.

Anything else just doesn't make sense. The demand is that BT becomes the exclusive platform for European rugby competition - just like Sky are now. They might sell certain rights to other terrestrial channels etc...but they'd control the broadcasting contract for the entire competition(s)

Told by who? The original press releases were for the English games. How is bringing more money to the pot for their own games then there was was for all the games not a strong negotiating point?

HammerofThunor wrote:It was suggested everyone would get more. And in the new unsupported suggestions in the guardian said everyone would get more. We have nothing else to work with at the moment.

Fly, all the anger seems to be directed at the PRL for wanting more money. Not at their unions for accepting less participation for more money.

That's not confirmed yet. If the deal is done then we're all wasting our time talking about it.

The anger with PRL is that they want it all, more money and more chances for English sides to prosper in the main event - not Amlin but HEC. And they want a tougher Pro12, with tougher qualifying for HEC, because they feel Irish sides in particular probably get too easy of a ride and can 'rest' players for HEC. Silly concept but there you go.

Which again points out that it's not about more money in the pot for all (that's a sales technique only), it's not about bringing the game to a wider audience in Europe (more rubbish), it's about creating a financial AND situational advantage for themselves not only to have six guaranteed places each year as usual ...but also a much more solid prospect of actually advancing in it by hopefully tiring out a few of the bigger Pro12 units.

There is no way...no way...that PRL sides hated meeting Pro12 minnows in Europe. To suggest such a thing is pure crud. They don't want Pro12 to give more 'quality' to Europe, they want them to give more 'tired' sides to Europe. It won't work though, as Pro12 is getting tougher and tougher every year anyway. The English sides will rue the day they argued that 'poor' Pro12 sides shouldn't get to play in HEC. It'll make their job tougher not easier.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:That doesn't mean that everyone will get more, particularly as they are also proposing to change the portions?

Everyone get's more but PRL decide who get's what which means's pro 12 get a little bit more and PRL get a lot more (obviously).

PRL use their increased pot of cash to buy the best players from the Pro 12, so Jon Davies goes to Northampton, Halfpenny to Leicester, Hogg to Saracens etc.

Basically, the English teams adopt the Toulon model and their national team start's to struggle as cheap irish, welsh and scottish players on lower salaries in the pro12 are easily available. There are less opportunities for english players at aviva clubs and the celtic unions have less control over their international players.

As a result our national teams become even less competitive against the southern hemisphere teams.

PRL and top14 are all about self interest and it is the job of the Pro 12 unions to reign them in for the good of the game as a whole.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The HEC is a cash cow for whoever participates in it. Surely that's the whole crux of all the wheeling and dealing and early selling of rights by English PRL that they never had (ie, television rights in other Nations.)

The HEC is a cash cow. Participation in it generates cash. The PRL are above all that contemplation of HEC in cash terms, are they?

The PRL sold the rights to their home games. The RFU believe they retain them when the ERC participation agreement ends in 2014, the PRL believed they got them in the RFU agreement that the club rights go to the PRL's control. The PRL also sold their league games from after 2015, which they don't currently have. But those TV right agreements are between the RFU and PRL. Nothing to do with anyone else (unless the RFU bring them in). You control the TV rights for games happening in your jurisdiction not for showing games in that area.

The PRL certainly aren't above thinking of the HEC in money terms. But some on here seem to like to pretend that only the clubs do that.

No...some here don't do that. Some here think they want equal participation in a European event that English and French sides currently have six guaranteed spots in every year. English and French sides...not clubs that anyone in Europe might support. English based and English supported teams... by right...in every European competition... 6 of them.

Others want parity with that..Scotland, Italy too. They want this parity so that they can progress as teams and as individual players who might eventually play for their Nation. They want the same right to have European top competition every year (by right) to hone skills they will need to fill International slots.

And if PRL only came to the table with their own Home games secured by BT then they wouldn't have had much of a negotiating hand, would they? No, they came to the table saying we have money for all of Europe, more money thatn miserable Sky ...but BT must be the platform the games get shown on and the competition rules must be modified to give English sides a better crack of the whip. That's claiming rights to other Nations TV rights that they didn't have. That was their brilliant plan - to have the whole European project bought up and with you to put on the table as your strong negotiating hand.

I'm sure I read on another, previous thread, that one poster accused another, english, poster of lack of neutrality in the HC final because of the number of english players in one of the french teams. I wonder how that poster might square these statements - one that states only supporters from the teams nation supports them, the other that supporters will follow any team that has their nationality of players.

Just curious

What's your source, Fly? I have never seen anything that says that.

Having said "that's what we've been told" (show me where), you then go on to argue that nothing else makes sense, but it's simply not the case.

1) The negotiating platform is the money. As long as there's enough, it doesn't need to cover all the European games. In fact, it's a far stronger negotiating platform if it only includes English home games, because it doesn't encroach on other teams' rights.

And there is enough money. As I've said above, BT needs this content and is prepared to pay top dollar for it and the PRL have negotiated hard (there's also a suggestion that the ERC have done a poor job renegotiating with Sky).

2) It is not BT's money. It is money that BT have agreed to pay to PRL for access to certain games. Once PRL have that money, it is entirely up to PRL how they spend it. If they want to share it with clubs in other leagues then that's up to them.

3) There may be further incentives for other leagues to throw their lot in with BT. We don't know. But neither has anything been said anywhere about PRL having negotiated away rights that they have no claim on at all.

You've built an argument on your own suppositions and not the facts.

Scrumdown wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:That doesn't mean that everyone will get more, particularly as they are also proposing to change the portions?

Everyone get's more but PRL decide who get's what which means's pro 12 get a little bit more and PRL get a lot more (obviously).

PRL use their increased pot of cash to buy the best players from the Pro 12, so Jon Davies goes to Northampton, Halfpenny to Leicester, Hogg to Saracens etc.

Basically, the English teams adopt the Toulon model and their national team start's to struggle as cheap irish, welsh and scottish players on lower salaries in the pro12 are easily available. There are less opportunities for english players at aviva clubs and the celtic unions have less control over their international players.

As a result our national teams become even less competitive against the southern hemisphere teams.

PRL and top14 are all about self interest and it is the job of the Pro 12 unions to reign them in for the good of the game as a whole.

And the article that started this all off again suggest they quit that job for more money

HammerofThunor wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:That doesn't mean that everyone will get more, particularly as they are also proposing to change the portions?

Everyone get's more but PRL decide who get's what which means's pro 12 get a little bit more and PRL get a lot more (obviously).

PRL use their increased pot of cash to buy the best players from the Pro 12, so Jon Davies goes to Northampton, Halfpenny to Leicester, Hogg to Saracens etc.

Basically, the English teams adopt the Toulon model and their national team start's to struggle as cheap irish, welsh and scottish players on lower salaries in the pro12 are easily available. There are less opportunities for english players at aviva clubs and the celtic unions have less control over their international players.

As a result our national teams become even less competitive against the southern hemisphere teams.

PRL and top14 are all about self interest and it is the job of the Pro 12 unions to reign them in for the good of the game as a whole.

And the article that started this all off again suggest they quit that job for more money

You quote that in an almost defensive manner even though you question how valid that article is. Well, it seems that way to me. Personally I don't believe it. Seems more like speculation being printed as fact. Maybe the journo playing games. Maybe to refocus the original demands of the PRL? More speculation. It must be catching

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:That doesn't mean that everyone will get more, particularly as they are also proposing to change the portions?

Everyone get's more but PRL decide who get's what which means's pro 12 get a little bit more and PRL get a lot more (obviously).

PRL use their increased pot of cash to buy the best players from the Pro 12, so Jon Davies goes to Northampton, Halfpenny to Leicester, Hogg to Saracens etc.

Basically, the English teams adopt the Toulon model and their national team start's to struggle as cheap irish, welsh and scottish players on lower salaries in the pro12 are easily available. There are less opportunities for english players at aviva clubs and the celtic unions have less control over their international players.

As a result our national teams become even less competitive against the southern hemisphere teams.

PRL and top14 are all about self interest and it is the job of the Pro 12 unions to reign them in for the good of the game as a whole.

And the article that started this all off again suggest they quit that job for more money

You quote that in an almost defensive manner even though you question how valid that article is. Well, it seems that way to me. Personally I don't believe it. Seems more like speculation being printed as fact. Maybe the journo playing games. Maybe to refocus the original demands of the PRL? More speculation. It must be catching

Well yes. People are getting angry over the article. I'm just pointing out if you get angry over the PRL bit you need to take the union sell out bit. But I've tried to make clear throughout it's still not done and I too don't think this is the outcome.

Poorfour wrote:What's your source, Fly? I have never seen anything that says that.

Having said "that's what we've been told" (show me where), you then go on to argue that nothing else makes sense, but it's simply not the case.

1) The negotiating platform is the money. As long as there's enough, it doesn't need to cover all the European games. In fact, it's a far stronger negotiating platform if it only includes English home games, because it doesn't encroach on other teams' rights.

And there is enough money. As I've said above, BT needs this content and is prepared to pay top dollar for it and the PRL have negotiated hard (there's also a suggestion that the ERC have done a poor job renegotiating with Sky).

2) It is not BT's money. It is money that BT have agreed to pay to PRL for access to certain games. Once PRL have that money, it is entirely up to PRL how they spend it. If they want to share it with clubs in other leagues then that's up to them.

3) There may be further incentives for other leagues to throw their lot in with BT. We don't know. But neither has anything been said anywhere about PRL having negotiated away rights that they have no claim on at all.

You've built an argument on your own suppositions and not the facts.

You fail to tell me how or why BT would give money/share money with organisations that had made their own broadcasting deals with rival broadcasting platforms for a European contest? "Oh you guys have already Sky onboard for your coverage of your games???...well here's some BT money anyway towards the whole European competition project."

Would Sky in such a scenario be expected to give some money to PRL sides too, as their slice of the 'pass-it-around' pie?? How would that happen since PRL have as yet no contract with Sky for any involvement in a European competition, just like Pro12 sides don't have any contract yet signed with BT? How does money get passed around without contracts and agreements on rights?

Marc Watson BT Vision:

"We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament with a fantastic new format, with, we hope, all the best clubs," he told http://www.sportspromedia.com.

"And we've secured, from the English Premiership, the rights to that for the UK. That tournament will be the successor to the Heineken Cup, which is a very successful tournament.

"The Heineken Cup, under its current contract, has another season to run, and that will be the end of it, and we are looking to set up a brand new tournament from then.

"We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we've bought give us an opportunity to do that."

Not much recognition that there might potentially be other broadcasting partners onboard in those lines, are there? And not much recognition of the fact that nothing was close to being WILL at the time of the statement, since they hadn't even talked to any of the other 'best clubs' at that point. The determination is to take over from Sky not be in partnership with it or any other network. Exclusive ownership of a product for maximum financial gain. No other option would be worth the investment.

A lot is being made of the supposed fact that "everyone gets more", but for how long?

BT aren't interested in rugby (or TV) for that matter. They are losing broadband share to Sky hand over fist and were faced with either cutting their charges or upgrading their bundle offer to stop the hemorrhage of customers. Once charges are cut it is very hard to get them back up again so they are trying the latter first. This is a stopgap to allow them to roll out their new fibre network and when they have critical mass they will campaign to attract migration from Sky Broadband through improved performance and (slightly) reduced charges - the TV bundle with rugby (or not) won't matter.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

I'm sure I read on another, previous thread, that one poster accused another, english, poster of lack of neutrality in the HC final because of the number of english players in one of the french teams. I wonder how that poster might square these statements - one that states only supporters from the teams nation supports them, the other that supporters will follow any team that has their nationality of players.

Just curious

No need to be so coy, Dubbelyew, you read me Just say it - as the game of not saying it suggests I'd be embarrased to be 'caught out'.

My highlighting of the distinctly English and French clubs bit is because the line was often given to me over the course of this long, long debate that English supporters don't see their clubs as especially 'English' but just clubs - no different to any other club in Europe - no National distinction made etc. They argued they weren't precious about there being an English club or clubs at the business end of HEC. They argued they were somehow 'purists' who think only in terms of clubs they support and/or Leagues. The inference was that they couldn't understand that Italian fans would be precious about seeing an Italian side in HEC, or that Scottish fans would support specifically Scottish sides in HEC. They couldn't understand such a fixation as these were only clubs in the context of a League called Pro12. Surely, the reasoning continued, the Italian fans would simply support one of their fellow Pro12 sides as their 'representative' in the HEC????

I always replied to those bits of guff by saying shyte A shyte smokescreen to disguise the benefits of having 6 English and French clubs in HEC each year by right - not by ability, by right. 6 automatic reasons to keep English fans interested and happy each year. 6 Automatic opportunities for English sides to play top level European rugby, a great learning curve for prospective English Internationals etc. To hell with the Scots and Italians wanting the same. They should be satisfied Leinster and Ospreys get to represent them.

So you see, where you see me contradicting myself I see it plainly emphasises my point about Toulon. The only reason Toulon got the English interest up to such levels, the only reason many English guys were defending a Toulon player who overdid the celebrations a tad, the only reason the English got a buzz out of seeing Toulon's captain get European Player of the Year is because there was a lot of English player involvement. How much more animated the English would have been, as English people, had an English club been the one taking on Clermont. Nationality matters - and a HEC based on 6N involvement matters. And to suggest Italian and Scottish fans should easily relinquish their National places at the HEC is quite simply arrogantly dismissive and insulting.

I see it as the English clubs trying to hijack the HEC for their own financial gain.

The HEC was originally set up by the 6 unions as a way of strengthening the game in Europe. Since then the competition has grown into what it is today. Since the last deal was in place the competition has gone from strength to strength and now the English decide that there should be a new competition.. that revolves around them, of course.

The excuses keep coming. They lump all Celtic and Italian teams into one box when it suits them. The Pro 12 is comstantly being attacked as part of this plan. When the top French sides rest their players its called squad rotation. When it happens in the Pro 12 its called sending out weakened teams. Double standards.

The English and French teams get more money and have more teams in it than any of the other unions as it is! Thats a point everyone should remember.

I don't think the French are 100% behind them either. The French of course want more money too etc etc but I would say most of the top French teams are more concerned about losing the tournament than the money, which they are not short of. The French are just starting to see the benefit of the HEC in the past few years and their fans are getting into it.

The clubs want a situation like the champions league in soccer where big clubs dominate and if any smaller club has a good season the big clubs will buy their best players.

Fly, I think you're forgetting that English people think they are the most important (only important) thing. Assuming Marc Watson is English (and he sounds arrogant enough even if he spells his name wrong) owning a sport exclusively was the rights to all England games (this makes even more sense since they don't have any involvement with the PRO12). And of course they have all the best clubs (granted they'll be playing away in England since every group has an English team)

And Fly do you seriously not understand how BT money would get to split to others. So if the above agreement goes through the money the English clubs got for their games gets split three ways between the leagues (with some kept aside for teams in the knockout stages if that's what they want). I don't really understand why you can't follow that.

I hate to say this but - I told you so.

Since the Rabo refused to negotiate in the first place, they have been losing bargaining chips throughout the winter as the pool tables show.

Unsurprisingly (again as I predicted) the last chance saloon was bound to be busy last weekend and the only gunslingers in town were almost all from England and France.

The Rabo should have negotiated eight months ago. But it appears that they are left with a tear in the eye, a bleeding hole in the foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

greytiger wrote:I hate to say this but - I told you so.

Since the Rabo refused to negotiate in the first place, they have been losing bargaining chips throughout the winter as the pool tables show.

Unsurprisingly (again as I predicted) the last chance saloon was bound to be busy last weekend and the only gunslingers in town were almost all from England and France.

The Rabo should have negotiated eight months ago. But it appears that they are left with a tear in the eye, a bleeding hole in the foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

So far from the mark that you might as well be on a different planet, GT! Oh hang on ...

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

greytiger wrote:I hate to say this but - I told you so.

Since the Rabo refused to negotiate in the first place, they have been losing bargaining chips throughout the winter as the pool tables show.

Unsurprisingly (again as I predicted) the last chance saloon was bound to be busy last weekend and the only gunslingers in town were almost all from England and France.

The Rabo should have negotiated eight months ago. But it appears that they are left with a tear in the eye, a bleeding hole in the foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

So far from the mark that you might as well be on a different planet, GT! Oh hang on ...

If you say so As.
But I'd need a bit of a steer from you as to how to navigate from Planet Earth to the Rabovian planetary system.

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:What's your source, Fly? I have never seen anything that says that.

Having said "that's what we've been told" (show me where), you then go on to argue that nothing else makes sense, but it's simply not the case.

1) The negotiating platform is the money. As long as there's enough, it doesn't need to cover all the European games. In fact, it's a far stronger negotiating platform if it only includes English home games, because it doesn't encroach on other teams' rights.

And there is enough money. As I've said above, BT needs this content and is prepared to pay top dollar for it and the PRL have negotiated hard (there's also a suggestion that the ERC have done a poor job renegotiating with Sky).

2) It is not BT's money. It is money that BT have agreed to pay to PRL for access to certain games. Once PRL have that money, it is entirely up to PRL how they spend it. If they want to share it with clubs in other leagues then that's up to them.

3) There may be further incentives for other leagues to throw their lot in with BT. We don't know. But neither has anything been said anywhere about PRL having negotiated away rights that they have no claim on at all.

You've built an argument on your own suppositions and not the facts.

You fail to tell me how or why BT would give money/share money with organisations that had made their own broadcasting deals with rival broadcasting platforms for a European contest? "Oh you guys have already Sky onboard for your coverage of your games???...well here's some BT money anyway towards the whole European competition project."

Would Sky in such a scenario be expected to give some money to PRL sides too, as their slice of the 'pass-it-around' pie?? How would that happen since PRL have as yet no contract with Sky for any involvement in a European competition, just like Pro12 sides don't have any contract yet signed with BT? How does money get passed around without contracts and agreements on rights?

Marc Watson BT Vision:

"We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament with a fantastic new format, with, we hope, all the best clubs," he told http://www.sportspromedia.com.

"And we've secured, from the English Premiership, the rights to that for the UK. That tournament will be the successor to the Heineken Cup, which is a very successful tournament.

"The Heineken Cup, under its current contract, has another season to run, and that will be the end of it, and we are looking to set up a brand new tournament from then.

"We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we've bought give us an opportunity to do that."

Not much recognition that there might potentially be other broadcasting partners onboard in those lines, are there? And not much recognition of the fact that nothing was close to being WILL at the time of the statement, since they hadn't even talked to any of the other 'best clubs' at that point. The determination is to take over from Sky not be in partnership with it or any other network. Exclusive ownership of a product for maximum financial gain. No other option would be worth the investment.

You are repeatedly blurring the distinction between aspiration and reality, and between the source of the money and whose money it is at a particular point in time. Yes, BT have an aspiration to get the rights from all the teams in European competition. But there has never been any suggestion that they have been daft enough to claim they have bought rights to anything other than English home games. Amongst other things, that would never be legally enforceable.

Yes, BT are paying the PRL money for these games, but once that money's been paid, it is no longer BT's money. It's PRL's to do with what they want. BT would not directly pay money to teams whose rights were signed to another broadcaster, but they've no cause to object if PRL share the money they have been given with those teams. In fact, BT would support it if that is what it takes to get the tournament set up. Rights to a tournament that doesn't exist aren't going to get you any subscribers.

And your analysis of BT's interest in sport is wrong. BT's fibre business was forcibly split into a separate legal entity about 8 years ago and is required to sell fibre access to other suppliers at wholesale rates. Success for BT's retail division relies on getting subscribers and like just about everyone else in the same space they are betting on a triple play or quadruple play of broadband, TV, phone (and possibly mobile). Having control of content is critical to that strategy, and is likely to remain so in the long term. I will switch my broadband to BT this summer to get access to Premiership rugby next year. If the rights went back to Sky, I would probably switch back to Sky. (The ideal scenario for me would be if Sky would buy back the roundball rights so that I could pay for rugby without having to pay for football as well. Sadly, not gonna happen).

The crux of this disjointed affaire is that the PRL want clubs to have the run of organising this tournament. To be able to negotiate broadcasting incomes and to assure a decent pay day for the clubs they represent.

Scotland, Italy, Wales and Ireland would like to see the unions remain in control of the game. The French appear midway between the two differing positions just wanting a smaller competition that would run concurrent to their T14, that they wish to increase in size.

The PRL want to split the earnings by league to reward competition(???).

If this unfortunately does have to become a club run competition then maybe a better scenario would be to reward by result?

Winners take largest share and those placed lower throughout are awarded accordingly in a gradually reducing amount.

Then teams that offer little in the way of competition receive little reward. Maybe moneys could be attributed on a pure win, draw lose basis from the start...?

As a rugby fan I want to see a great competition, one that is European and reflects the best of European rugby. I do not want to see a competition hijacked by the wealthiest and taken away from the majority.

Whether one nation can "bring more to the table" is a mute point as that is purely in viewing population numbers. Without opposition they have nothing to bargain for.

I know which TV coverage (Sky or BT(ex ESPN)) I'd prefer.

It won't be Sky's stale offering.

But the deal won't be sealed on rugby union alone. It will be the pervasive force of footy.

Footy alone is the bonding factor of all TV sports deals.

greytiger wrote:I hate to say this but - I told you so.

Since the Rabo refused to negotiate in the first place, they have been losing bargaining chips throughout the winter as the pool tables show.

Unsurprisingly (again as I predicted) the last chance saloon was bound to be busy last weekend and the only gunslingers in town were almost all from England and France.

The Rabo should have negotiated eight months ago. But it appears that they are left with a tear in the eye, a bleeding hole in the foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

One semi-finalist, 2 quater finalists in H-cup and win the Almin cup.
Not bad
England
One Semi–final, 3 Quarter–finals didn't even reach semi's in Almin

so England one more Q finalist but IRFU win almin, (ERC rank Q-final as 5 points, and Almin win as 6 points) so Pro 12 performed better than the Jeff.

But one years results don't mean much, as a Union could just have a bad draw and its teams all go out early, and the next year it could have 3 teams in the semi's and wins it. So for the Pro 12 Unions 8 months ago wasn't a position of strength compared to now.

Look the ERC ranking (uses the last 4 years) French have 5 teams in top 10 Pro 12 have 3 teams in top 10 , Jeff have 2 (9th and 10th).

Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

Because the WRU can be trusted to ensure the money gets spent on the right things where as the regions will just waste it.

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

It was designed for the top teams from each country to play each other, not nessaraly clubs.
The Heineken Cup was launched in the summer of 1995 on the initiative of the then Five Nations Committee to provide a new level of professional cross border competition

Addition, the RFU collect the English clubs share, and distrubutes it as it sees fit, (sharing it between all 12 clubs, and knock out money does direct to team that earns it),

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

In Wales it would likely be better for the regions for their collective body RRW to represent their interest over the WRU.

I can't see how in a country where you wish to have a fair system of non Franchised rugby, where a lower league minnow could one day win a European trophy, that it is fair on those outside the elite few to allow them to organise the Terms and Conditions, Profits and how they are shared?

A nonpartisan system of performance and reward would surely garner what all fans want? A fair and competitive league.

Kingshu wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

It was designed for the top teams from each country to play each other, not nessaraly clubs.
The Heineken Cup was launched in the summer of 1995 on the initiative of the then Five Nations Committee to provide a new level of professional cross border competition

Though at that time only Ireland did not enter clubs I thought.

Anyway what it was meant to be, or is, is irrelevant. Sadly it is down to power and money. Very, very few people involved in the whole mess want what is best for the game. ERC are the most corrupt and incompetent part of the whole thing, which is shocking when you look at everyone else.

Everyone talks the talk, but sadly they always look as if they would sell their children into slavery if it made them more powerful. I exclude no-one from this condemnation, every damned organisation in every country involved is corrupt, power-mad and cash obsessed.

We all come on here fighting our own countries cause, and disparaging anyone with opposing views - yet really not one of us has a leg to stand on.

Get rid of ERC, get rid of Murdoch and start again.

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

Why? Because it wasn't designed as a club competition.

I doubt that the new competition, whatever the format, will be able to be an exclusively 'club' competition either or it will mean that three of HECs past winners will no longer be eligible to play in the new competition. Maybe that would actually be an ideal solution for many of the bigger clubs in England and France.