Why have the PRL and BT not explained their blue print for their concept competition...?

First topic message reminder :

On this Forum the argument rages on between a few supporters of the PRL under the guise of some mislead Thatcher-esq concept of free market economy.

The greatest gaping hole in the argument of those wishing for a monumental change of power from a Unions controlled European competition to something else is that those touting a new competition have released no details whatsoever.

Why would anyone with what they consider a better competition not reveal the competition itself, but rather wrangle and antagonise those that they know currently oppose it.

Should those taking the lead in this, Mark McCafferty and Marc Watson, really want everyone to join their concept, to embrace their BT vision surely they have to reveal a blue print as to what it is, how it works, why it is better.

We know where they are with the situation now, they want more much money, they want more control, they want the clubs and Media company they represent to run a European competition, they want everyone else to join in too.

Why will they not lay down the competition for all to see...?

There's backing yourself, dear Aukster and TJ, and then there's taking a suicidal risk. That contract can only work commercially for the PRL if literally everything goes their way.

The men behind the PRL are mostly self-made multi-millionaires. They got that way by taking calculated risks.

Are you familiar with the concepts of upside, downside and expectation? Upside is what you get if it works out the way you want, downside is what you get if it doesn't and expectation is the possible outcomes multiplied by the possibilities of them happening.

The chance of anyone being able to negotiate what that "contract" implies is vanishingly close to zero (the main issue being the ownership of the tournament). That would have been apparent to anyone with half a brain at the point it was supposedly signed. The upside is actually relatively small (an extra £1m per year - enough to reach breakeven a couple of years quicker but not a dramatic change); the downside is a high probability of a speedy demise.

The PRL may be arrogant, hectoring, and only out for their own interests, but the one thing everyone agrees they are is out for their own interests. A contract like that in no way supports their own interests, unless they have a cunning plan to sue their lawyers for giving bad advice and do it under US law so they can get punitive damages.

And BT getting domestic rugby rights for a song. Well, they're not. They're getting rights to the PRL's domestic games for a song. If the PRL goes under, they've got nothing. The rights are not going to magically transfer to whatever comes next. And sure as eggs is eggs, if that happens the successor is not going to sell those rights to BT.

That structure is self defeating unless the percentages at stake are considerably smaller than suggested.

Anyway, haven't the PRL said that the money is the same regardless of who takes part?

maestegmafia wrote:On this Forum the argument rages on between a few supporters of the PRL under the guise of some mislead Thatcher-esq concept of free market economy.

The greatest gaping hole in the argument of those wishing for a monumental change of power from a Unions controlled European competition to something else is that those touting a new competition have released no details whatsoever.

Why would anyone with what they consider a better competition not reveal the competition itself, but rather wrangle and antagonise those that they know currently oppose it.

Should those taking the lead in this, Mark McCafferty and Marc Watson, really want everyone to join their concept, to embrace their BT vision surely they have to reveal a blue print as to what it is, how it works, why it is better.

We know where they are with the situation now, they want more much money, they want more control, they want the clubs and Media company they represent to run a European competition, they want everyone else to join in too.

Why will they not lay down the competition for all to see...?

if you were a club, you could call them up and register your interest and they would start talking to you. you, me and the ERC are outsiders who they would not wish to share details of their BT contract with. And final tournament details will depend on who has registered interest so i am sure they are still evolving.

I believe the PRL completely misunderstood eh motives of the rest of the unions and underestimated the opposition they would face. I think they thought that the Rabo unions would be happy to chase a bit more money not realising that many folk are not motivated purely by money but value intangibles as well.

Se itsallaboutheincentives for someone who does not understand that to many folk profit is not the only thing worth chasing

I think its a huge misread from a lack of understanding of those who are not motivated by profit and profit alone.

Poorfour wrote:And BT getting domestic rugby rights for a song. Well, they're not. They're getting rights to the PRL's domestic games for a song. If the PRL goes under, they've got nothing. The rights are not going to magically transfer to whatever comes next. And sure as eggs is eggs, if that happens the successor is not going to sell those rights to BT.

My dear Poorfour - thankyou for your erudite explanation of business for an uneducated oik like myself. So if the PRL go under, does that make it easier or harder for BT to bid for the rights from whomever picks up the pieces? Will the successor not take the highest bid?

TJ wrote:I believe the PRL completely misunderstood eh motives of the rest of the unions and underestimated the opposition they would face. I think they thought that the Rabo unions would be happy to chase a bit more money not realising that many folk are not motivated purely by money but value intangibles as well.

Se itsallaboutheincentives for someone who does not understand that to many folk profit is not the only thing worth chasing

I think its a huge misread from a lack of understanding of those who are not motivated by profit and profit alone.

if money isnt all that important then why do the pro12 insist on hanging onto their clearly inequitable financial advantages?

TJ, you seem to have a very simplistic view of profit, and of what motivates people.

Firstly, repeatedly harking on "profit" as if it is the root of all evil misses a fundamental point. Right now, the PRL clubs mostly don't make a profit, and in part that's because they get less per team from European competition. The PRL owners want to stop making losses and start paying down debt. That's not profiteering, that's making those clubs sustainable.

Secondly, you should be interested in English clubs being sustainable, because they are a source of revenue for Celtic clubs. Without all 6 nations, as you've pointed out, any European tournament is worth a fair bit less. Without either of the two major audiences (France and England), it's worth a lot less. Until they are consistently not making losses (I'll use that phrase, since you dislike profit so much), there is the threat that enough of them might go under to jeopardise European rugby. It won't happen tomorrow, but there's not an inexhaustible supply of either rugby investment or clubs and owners willing to give it a go.

Thirdly, for as long as there's a differential in European tv earnings between the teams in the European competitions, those who take less from the pot are effectively subsidising those who take more. Ask an economist. M Boudjellal is investing in Toulon, but he's also investing in your team.

Finally, the men behind the English clubs have invested large amounts of money, often their personal money rather than corporate cash, over a long period of time and are yet to see any return. Even once the clubs are profitable at an operating level, they still need to pay off the accumulated debt before the owners see a material return, and that could easily take another decade. Sure, they hope to make a bit of cash in the end, but you don't make that kind of investment at that rate of return purely for the cash. It's either disingenuous, dishonest or naive to suggest that they have no interest in rugby. Most of these guys were long term supporters of their clubs before they were owners.

Mostly, they want those clubs to survive and thrive in the long term. And they are canny enough to realise that for that to happen they need strong competition. The PRL explicitly takes measures to even up the competition between its members. I believe and hope it's smart enough to recognise that it needs strong European competition, too. Look at what they've proposed - they haven't actually asked for anything beyond a level playing field at the team level (you may disagree about whether it should be determined at team or union level, but I don't think you can really argue that any documented proposal does more than equalise the position between teams).

They aren't perfect, but the situation and their motivations are much more complicated than the view you paint.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote:And BT getting domestic rugby rights for a song. Well, they're not. They're getting rights to the PRL's domestic games for a song. If the PRL goes under, they've got nothing. The rights are not going to magically transfer to whatever comes next. And sure as eggs is eggs, if that happens the successor is not going to sell those rights to BT.

My dear Poorfour - thankyou for your erudite explanation of business for an uneducated oik like myself. So if the PRL go under, does that make it easier or harder for BT to bid for the rights from whomever picks up the pieces? Will the successor not take the highest bid?

Would you consider ANY bid from an organisation that had ruined your predecessor? How could you trust them?

I am regularly involved in commercial negotiations and you don't just take the highest bid. You have to consider the risk that they will fail or fail to deliver. I've lost bids before for not being able to satisfy the compliance team...

The answer is much, much harder. They'd not be able to negotiate the same terms, they'd need to guarantee much more money, and Sky would be ready this time and would have a very good chance of winning the business.

That deal structure puts BT in a position where it could blacken its reputation with any potential content provider.

One thing that smells particularly fishy about E-Den#s alleged contract post - if that were the real contract and RFU had indeed seen it (as PRL and RFU concede) there cannot be any way that RFU would back that contract given that they would have to give backdated written authorisation to PRL for any european bit (in other words RFU could void the euro part of the contract without shifting in their chair as euro rights revert to them post 2014). so i call MASSIVE BS on that previous post.

Poorfour - the answer to the losses of the PRL clubs is to live within their means - like the Rabo do

Profit is not bad. Profit at the expense of everything else is bad. some things are worth a lot but not in financial terms. How do you value a friendship? a lover?

the answer to the losses of PRL clubs is the inequitable subsidies recieved by SRU, IRFU etc clubs.

rugby is sport, its entertainment. great to play, fun to watch.

you want friendship or lovers, i suggest you are mistaking rugby for a dating website.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:the answer to the losses of PRL clubs is the inequitable subsidies recieved by SRU, IRFU etc clubs.

rugby is sport, its entertainment. great to play, fun to watch.

you want friendship or lovers, i suggest you are mistaking rugby for a dating website.

Haha, I've have just figured out who you are. Just as annoying to deal with in real life. Hope you are getting a bonus for this campaign. See you at the next meeting. It looks like it will be interesting.

Wtf? I don't go to AA

At least now I know the contract thing was a hoax. That's actually a bit of a relief. Thanks for that.

TJ wrote:Poorfour - the answer to the losses of the PRL clubs is to live within their means - like the Rabo do

Profit is not bad.  Profit at the expense of everything else is bad.  some things are worth  a lot but not in financial terms.  How do you value a friendship?  a lover?

Do the Rabo teams live within their means? I thought the IRFU had massive debt?

The domestic situations are different. A lot of the PRL teams' debt is the result of having to build or rent stadia. Fair shares of European revenue and most of tjhem could start paying off that debt

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:Poorfour - the answer to the losses of the PRL clubs is to live within their means - like the Rabo do

Profit is not bad.  Profit at the expense of everything else is bad.  some things are worth  a lot but not in financial terms.  How do you value a friendship?  a lover?

Do the Rabo teams live within their means? I thought the IRFU had massive debt?

The domestic situations are different. A lot of the PRL teams' debt is the result of having to build or rent stadia. Fair shares of European revenue and most of tjhem could start paying off that debt

That's due to PRL rules that are out of kilter with the lower ranked clubs. They enforce a ten thousand seater plus stadium on clubs that have no where near that fan base.

Saracens only average eight thousand at a home game, Newcastle were struggling to get four thousand.

E is no Den wrote:
Just as well this is all Hypothetical

Well well well....the plot thickens .....

Poorfour wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote:And BT getting domestic rugby rights for a song. Well, they're not. They're getting rights to the PRL's domestic games for a song. If the PRL goes under, they've got nothing. The rights are not going to magically transfer to whatever comes next. And sure as eggs is eggs, if that happens the successor is not going to sell those rights to BT.

My dear Poorfour - thankyou for your erudite explanation of business for an uneducated oik like myself. So if the PRL go under, does that make it easier or harder for BT to bid for the rights from whomever picks up the pieces? Will the successor not take the highest bid?

Would you consider ANY bid from an organisation that had ruined your predecessor? How could you trust them?

I am regularly involved in commercial negotiations and you don't just take the highest bid. You have to consider the risk that they will fail or fail to deliver. I've lost bids before for not being able to satisfy the compliance team...

The answer is much, much harder. They'd not be able to negotiate the same terms, they'd need to guarantee much more money, and Sky would be ready this time and would have a very good chance of winning the business.

That deal structure puts BT in a position where it could blacken its reputation with any potential content provider.

Who is ruining whom? PRL have agreed some sort of deal with BT for the rights to televise their clubs in return for cash. BT surely would have some form of contract regarding exactly what they get for their money. The AP rights are a given so the only unknown in such a contract is the extent of a European competition on top of that. I may not be a business genius like yourself, but wouldn't BT only want to pay top dollar for the full product that Sky have capitalised on? For BT to pay a fixed amount irrespective of the product delivered seems commercially naive to me.

If the PRL go "under" it will be because the clubs they represent have lost faith in them for trying to sell something they didn't own. BT won't cop any blame for making a headline offer to pump money into the game. Wouldn't it be ironic if the BT offer hailed as a masterstroke of PRL negotiation, was then rejected by the AP clubs as being too risky?

I have been using "PRL" as shorthand for the clubs - they are essentially the same thing. If that deal structure is real, there is a realistic chance that the teams would go under as a result of the drop in revenue, unless they get everything they want in Europe.

My point about BT was just that they should be much more interested in making what they do have successful than in having a contract that forces their source of unique content to play high stakes Russian roulette with 5 barrels loaded.

I can understand tying the revenue for Europe to the number of unions involved but the "only paying expenses" thing and tying AP revenue to a European cup raise the stakes unnecessarily high.

Sure, BT want as many nations involved as they can, but not at the expense of risking killing the AP. That's why I say it's a wind up.

E is no Den wrote:3) The amount paid for the premier league is also highly dependent on the formation of a new PRL/LNR European Cup. The figure paid this year consists of a significant % of a “Signing on bonus” this applies to the first year only. For each successive year, a similar bonus exists dependent on the PRL having provided BT with a new European Cup. This is also graded according to the number of Tier 1 nations clubs involved, identical to the conditions above. Zero for less than 4, 75% for 5 etc. If PRL are not able to provide a new European Cup their league payments drop to a lower figure than the previous SKY deal.

Poorfour wrote:I can understand tying the revenue for Europe to the number of unions involved but the "only paying expenses" thing and tying AP revenue to a European cup raise the stakes unnecessarily high.

The "signing on bonus" sounds like a premium amount over the market value (Sky) for domestic competition. Surely the PRL wouldn't be so foolish to have a basic element that is less than their current revenue? They know the difficulty of getting the other Unions behind a new concept so their 'downside' would be no worse that current revenue, with an 'upside' of some more revenue but far more control - worth a punt?

As per point 3 - the subsequent years' "similar bonus" is dependent on the European competition, but as mentioned above if this bonus is additional to the basic agreement for the AP, how would that threaten the existence of the clubs?

maestegmafia wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

How can they answer those questions when there not sure who is on board with the new competition yet? Isn't that common sense?

They've come out and said that or have you failed to miss that?

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

How can they answer those questions when there not sure who is on board with the new competition yet? Isn't that common sense?

They've come out and said that or have you failed to miss that?

A few things. Reading MadForChelsea's comment. 3 tiers, and 20 teams in each teir (60 clubs). Seeing as the only ones to have mentioned officially that they want to be part of this are the PRL (12 teams) and LNR (14 + 16 = 30) there looks like there will be a bit of a deficit in clubs involved (needing another 18 teams!).

What a joke this RCC (rugby chumps cup) is turning out to be.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

How can they answer those questions when there not sure who is on board with the new competition yet? Isn't that common sense?

They've come out and said that or have you failed to miss that?

A few things.  Reading MadForChelsea's comment.  3 tiers, and 20 teams in each teir (60 clubs).  Seeing as the only ones to have mentioned officially that they want to be part of this are the PRL (12 teams) and LNR (14 + 16 = 30) there looks like there will be a bit of a deficit in clubs involved (needing another 18 teams!).

thats how they want it to be if all clubs were involved, clearly that might not be the case hence why we havent heard the final setup yet as we (and they) do not know how many clubs will be in.

nathan wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

How can they answer those questions when there not sure who is on board with the new competition yet? Isn't that common sense?

They've come out and said that or have you failed to miss that?

A few things.  Reading MadForChelsea's comment.  3 tiers, and 20 teams in each teir (60 clubs).  Seeing as the only ones to have mentioned officially that they want to be part of this are the PRL (12 teams) and LNR (14 + 16 = 30) there looks like there will be a bit of a deficit in clubs involved (needing another 18 teams!).

thats how they want it to be if all clubs were involved, clearly that might not be the case hence why we havent heard the final setup yet as we (and they) do not know how many clubs will be in.

So far there's 12. LNR won't be interested in a Franglo.

Munchkin wrote:

nathan wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

How can they answer those questions when there not sure who is on board with the new competition yet? Isn't that common sense?

They've come out and said that or have you failed to miss that?

A few things.  Reading MadForChelsea's comment.  3 tiers, and 20 teams in each teir (60 clubs).  Seeing as the only ones to have mentioned officially that they want to be part of this are the PRL (12 teams) and LNR (14 + 16 = 30) there looks like there will be a bit of a deficit in clubs involved (needing another 18 teams!).

thats how they want it to be if all clubs were involved, clearly that might not be the case hence why we havent heard the final setup yet as we (and they) do not know how many clubs will be in.

 


So far there's 12. LNR won't be interested in a Franglo.

That's not what they have said though is it...

Nathan - what the LNR and the FFR say is different which is a bit of a problem. FFR have said they will do no euro comp unless it had the Jeff and Rabo sides.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Nathan - what the LNR and the FFR say is different which is a bit of a problem.  FFR have said they will do no euro comp unless it had the Jeff and Rabo sides.

That isn't what Munchkin said though, he said the LNR wouldn't be interested when they are interested.

"That's not what they have said though is it..."

What they say, and what they do may not be the same thing. Applies to all sides.

It's my understanding that one of the original statements issued by LNR was along the lines of 'not joining in any competition unless all unions were represented'.

Why would they join in a 2 sided competition? They certainly don't need to, and a T16 may be much more appealing for them.

Munchkin wrote:"That's not what they have said though is it..."

What they say, and what they do may not be the same thing. Applies to all sides.

It's my understanding that one of the original statements issued by LNR was along the lines of 'not joining in any competition unless all unions were represented'.

Why would they join in a 2 sided competition? They certainly don't need to, and a T16 may be much more appealing for them.

One of the early staements from the LNR was that the English had tried talking to them about a Franglo alternative. They said they would not consider a competition without the celts and the English. Unless negotiations break down. Guess what? They've broken down.

There's been very little mention of the third tier competition, except that it would run early in the season and two teams would qualify to compete in the second tier Cup/Trophy/Bowl/Shield. Speculation might lead us to competitors from the Russian and Georgian Pro leagues, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Ukraine, Belgium, possibly the Italian 2nd tier, etc.

Munchkin wrote:"That's not what they have said though is it..."

What they say, and what they do may not be the same thing. Applies to all sides.

It's my understanding that one of the original statements issued by LNR was along the lines of 'not joining in any competition unless all unions were represented'.

Why would they join in a 2 sided competition? They certainly don't need to, and a T16 may be much more appealing for them.

The latest and most up to date statement is that they do not what to negotiate any more and they are joining the the cup.

nathan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"That's not what they have said though is it..."

What they say, and what they do may not be the same thing. Applies to all sides.

It's my understanding that one of the original statements issued by LNR was along the lines of 'not joining in any competition unless all unions were represented'.

Why would they join in a 2 sided competition? They certainly don't need to, and a T16 may be much more appealing for them.

The latest and most up to date statement is that they do not what to negotiate any more and they are joining the the cup.

Against FFR? Wouldn't think so, Nathan, and neither do I believe they would want to. If they did then maybe they should change the name? What about 'Franglo World Series'? Nice ring to it  

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

How can they answer those questions when there not sure who is on board with the new competition yet? Isn't that common sense?

They've come out and said that or have you failed to miss that?

Common sense would indicate that teams can't get on board unless they know what they're boarding. If the PRL were really interested in getting P12 Unions involved they would have stipulated exactly what they would be getting into given different scenarios, not unlike the 'hypothetical' BT contract posted earlier. Maybe they could have put together a pack of information with the likely scenarios clearly laid out? If the PRL want to get in bed with someone then perhaps they should try a little schmooze with dinner and flowers rather than just writing down their Room Number.

The Great Aukster wrote:

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

How can they answer those questions when there not sure who is on board with the new competition yet? Isn't that common sense?

They've come out and said that or have you failed to miss that?

Common sense would indicate that teams can't get on board unless they know what they're boarding. If the PRL were really interested in getting P12 Unions involved they would have stipulated exactly what they would be getting into given different scenarios, not unlike the 'hypothetical' BT contract posted earlier. Maybe they could have put together a pack of information with the likely scenarios clearly laid out? If the PRL want to get in bed with someone then perhaps they should try a little schmooze with dinner and flowers rather than just writing down their Room Number.

They can't create the rules until they know who's on board.

Nobody can get on board until they know what the rules are.

You could write a book about this sort of mindbender.

Catch 22?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:There's been very little mention of the third tier competition

That's because there's no first tier.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Catch 22?

Well, it's a better title than Rugby Champs Cup.

But can they name the tournament before we know who's on board???

 "We would like to offer you a contract"

 Oh goody! What are the terms of the contract?

 "We can't tell you until you commit to the contract, but it will be really, really good for you......honestly"

Munchkin wrote: "We would like to offer you a contract"

 Oh goody! What are the terms of the contract?

 "We can't tell you until you commit to the contract, but it will be really, really good for you......honestly"

 

rodders wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:There's been very little mention of the third tier competition

That's because there's no first tier.  

Just seen this:

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/199763.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

seems the conceptual third tier may no longer be part of the concept.

Casartelli wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Catch 22?

Well, it's a better title than Rugby Champs Cup.

But can they name the tournament before we know who's on board???

There will be a third tier designed to appeal to lonely primate tea drinkers - it will be known as the Ugly Chimps Cup

Munchkin wrote: "We would like to offer you a contract"

 Oh goody! What are the terms of the contract?

 "We can't tell you until you commit to the contract, but it will be really, really good for you......honestly"

Internet evidence is a bit thin on this issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the 'investment consortium' that bought Bruce Craig's 'Pharmaceuticals Logistics Empire' for £900m later discovered that they'd acquired a second-hand Ford Transit full of tic-tacs.

 

Castarelli wrote:but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the 'investment consortium' that bought Bruce Craig's 'Pharmaceuticals Logistics Empire' for £900m later discovered that they'd acquired a second-hand Ford Transit full of tic-tacs.

Beautiful! (or bootyful as they say down my way)  

More seriously although I agree with their fundamental standpoint, I wish that individual PRL owners would wind their necks in. It seems that only the biggest (or richest (Bath and Sarries) CEOs along with desperately impoverished (LI) owners spout off in public.

Moderate clubs appear to be more content themselves by making public statements via an official  PRL spokesman rather than increasingly inflammatory personal press releases/interviews.

The ultimate impression will be similar to UKIP and their loose cannon gob sh!te - ruinous.

Ultimately the devil is in the TV deal. The English clubs have this much trumpeted and mysterious TV deal with BT Sport- but were anyone to join a new tournament, does that cover the broadcast rights to other nations games?

Are BT Sport interested in buying all the broadcast rights? Or just the English? What is the value of any potential sale of broadcast rights for a new tournament? Are stakeholders in any new tournament responsible for selling the rights to their games themselves or would there a collective pot of TV money shared out?

Until these questions are answered you can see how other unions would prefer to deal with the ERC where they know exactly what they'll get. Even if the Celtic Unions get the RFU and FFRs blessing to explore the option of a new pan-European competition, the PRL/LNR still really have to start selling it and clearing up the mystery.

So far it seems this Rugby Champions Cup has just been hammered together on the fly and no-one has any idea what form it would take on or off the pitch.

Here's the nature of the blue print from one of the prime movers in the LNR, Jacky Lorenzetti - it appears that it's an entire world club championship!

In the original French:

Interrogé par le Parisien ce mercredi, Jacky Lorenzetti, le président du Racing Metro 92, s’est pour la première fois exprimé sur la Rugby Champions Cup. Selon lui, cette compétition voulue par les ligues anglaise et française dépassera « le cercle européen ». L’homme fort du club francilien va encore plus loin : « Nous recréons un organisme mondial afin de lancer la Coupe du monde des clubs. Il y aura des équipes anglaises, françaises, néo-zélandaises, australiennes, sud-africaines. » Un projet de grande ampleur qui implique bien évidemment une énorme logistique, notamment au point de vue du calendrier. « Nous travaillons en ce sens », précise l'homme d'affaire.

La tête pleine de projets, les présidents des clubs de Top 14 semblent en effet décidés à mettre sur pied cette nouvelle compétition, qui selon eux, est plus en accord avec leurs besoins. Après Mourad Boudjellal, Jacky Lorenzetti est le deuxième président à monter au créneau contre à l’ERC, mais également contre la FFR : « Aujourd’hui la Coupe d’Europe est viciée. Elle est organisée par les fédérations. Ce n’est pas normal. » Selon lui, le rôle de la FFR doit se cantonner au XV de France : « Nous ne demandons pas à organiser le Tournoi des Six nations ! En revanche, tout ce qui concerne les clubs doit revenir à la Ligue nationale. » Laquelle a récemment déclaré, par l’intermédiaire de son président Paul Goze, que la mise en place du projet se poursuivrait et qu’il n’y aurait plus de négociations sur l’actuelle Coupe d’Europe.

Jacky Lorenzetti est donc persuadé que les fédérations « donneront leur accord », lequel est nécessaire pour que les clubs participent à la Rugby Champions Cup, car c’est « dans l’intérêt des clubs. » Reste également à convaincre l’IRB. Ici encore, le président du Racing ne voit pas où se situe le problème : « On ne fera pas une Coupe d’Europe bis. On ne veut pas entrer en concurrence avec l’épreuve actuelle. Je ne vois pas pourquoi l’IRB ne s’accorderait pas avec nous. Il suffit qu’il ait une volonté politique ». Voilà peut-être où se situe le problème à l'heure actuelle.

And an English translation courtesy of google:

Asked by Le Parisien on Wednesday , Jacky Lorenzetti , president of Racing Metro 92 , has for the first time expressed the Rugby Champions Cup. According to him, this desired by the English and French leagues competition exceed "the European circle." The strong man of the Paris Club goes even further : " We will create a global organization to launch the FIFA Club World Cup. There will be teams from the UK , French , New Zealand , Australian, South African . " A large-scale project which obviously involves huge logistics, including the views of the calendar. "We are working in this direction ," says the businessman .

Head full of projects, club presidents Top 14 indeed seem determined to develop this new competition , which they claim is more in tune with their needs. After Mourad Boudjellal , Jacky Lorenzetti is the second president to leap against the ERC , but also against the FFR : "Today the European Cup is flawed. It is organized by the federations. This is not normal . " According to him, the role of FFR must be confined to the XV of France :" We do not want to organize the Six Nations ! However, everything about the club must return to the LNR. " Which said recently, through its president Paul Goze , the implementation of the project would continue and there would be no more negotiations on the current European Cup .

Jacky Lorenzetti is convinced that the federations " give their consent ," which is necessary for the clubs involved in the Champions Cup Rugby , because it is "in the interest of clubs. " It also remains to convince the IRB. Again , the President of Racing can not see where the problem lies : " We will not do a poor Europe Cup. We do not want to compete with the current test. I do not see why the IRB would not agree with us. Simply it is a political will . " Perhaps this is where the problem lies at the moment .
Learn more about

It's a good thing those SH sides aren't controlled by their Unions, eh? Otherwise they'd have the exact same... wait a minute!

"WORLD DOMINATION, HERE WE COME!" signed M. McCafferty, N. Wray, M. Boudjellal, J. Lorenzetti and B. Craig (pip, pip, ou chouxfleur, chouxfleur)

Notch wrote:Ultimately the devil is in the TV deal. The English clubs have this much trumpeted and mysterious TV deal with BT Sport- but were anyone to join a new tournament, does that cover the broadcast rights to other nations games?

Are BT Sport interested in buying all the broadcast rights? Or just the English? What is the value of any potential sale of broadcast rights for a new tournament? Are stakeholders in any new tournament responsible for selling the rights to their games themselves or would there a collective pot of TV money shared out?

Until these questions are answered you can see how other unions would prefer to deal with the ERC where they know exactly what they'll get. Even if the Celtic Unions get the RFU and FFRs blessing to explore the option of a new pan-European competition, the PRL/LNR still really have to start selling it and clearing up the mystery.

So far it seems this Rugby Champions Cup has just been hammered together on the fly and no-one has any idea what form it would take on or off the pitch.

I assumed BT have just bought the English teams' home games. Has anyone seen anything definite?

When the deal was first announced it was said that the European money would go into the European pot.

There were conflicting reports on what was included. Some said games in England. Some said games involving the England teams. Personally I think (only my opinion) that the BT deal was for just the English home games. The reason for this is that they argued that they could sell the games due to the RFU agreement. That agreement only counts English home games (the only ones the RFU have any say on). But this does cover the viewing of these games in any country. The union that hosts the games controls the rights not the one where the viewer lives.