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

by maestegmafia Fri 20 Sep 2013, 3:16 pm

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...?

by The Great Aukster Thu 26 Sep 2013, 10:23 pm

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

No, that is the strange thing - why wouldn't BT and/or the PRL outline exactly what they are offering? That inexplicable vacuum allows all sorts of hypothetical speculation...

E is no Den wrote:A few random musings:
Obviously in this litigious society no one should make statements in relation to other peoples private dealings without having proof. Therefore all we can do is make Hypothetical assumptions about what may be going on. Let's pretend an imagined employee of a national rugby union had seen a copy of the BT deal. He could then give hypothetical explanations to the following recent occurrences.
1) Why the PRL have been so vocal about trying to push their new European league on the rest of us and increasingly so as the deadline draws near.
2) Why the RFU have been so quiet about the whole matter.
3) The French clubs interest over an extended T14.
4) LNR representatives making references to “Contracts being signed” and “having to help the English from the mess they have created”.
5) And most importantly why no one has been shown a copy of the BT agreement except the RFU.

This imagined employee might say that the BT deal "Allegedly" states that:
1) The European pot is highly dependent on the number of tier 1 nation clubs taking part. Less than four nations and only travel costs for each team are paid. Only four and 50% is paid, 5 nation’s means 75% and all 6 are needed for the full 100%.
2) The European pot is for a “NEW” European cup of which the PRL, LNR and BT are the majority shareholders and control 60% of the vote,
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.
4) The BT deal applies to all home games in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The percentages offered to Scotland, Wales and Ireland as stated by PRL are correct. They however receive around 50% of the total pot and France receives the remainder. How can this be true? Why is the LNR share smaller than now and Italy have none.
5) The LNR have been offered a share of the pot equal to that of Wales, Scotland and Ireland but have also been given the right to negotiate their own TV deal of which PRL will receive, an equal percentage as the LNR receive from the BT deal. To legitimise this based on TV markets, the Italians are allowed (have to) negotiate their own TV deal.
What would this all mean? Yes the other nations would all make more money than they are now. The PRL clubs will however make substantially more money than the Celts. 50% of BT deal plus 11% of LNR deal compared to just 11% of the BT deal for the Celts. The French stand to make even more from a new deal due to the competition between Canal and a new competitor.
However if a new European Cup does not come about the PRL will receive no European money, even for a French/English league. They will also lose their bonus league payments leaving them worse off financially than they are now. By signing the deal they excluded themselves from taking part in any ERC competition, hence it’s all or nothing for them. The LNR have signed a contract for a new European CUP but it is also conditional on having four Tier one nation members before coming into affect. This provides them with the guarantees but it also means they are not prohibited from re-entering the ERC.
This would explain why the RFU are the only ones who have been shown the Deal, and why they have refused to come out against the clubs. Despite not being in favour of the PRL’s actions they now have no choice but to allow a new European Cup or else most of the premier clubs will be bankrupt in time for the World Cup.
Just as well this is all Hypothetical

by doctornickolas Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:09 am

So If France and Italy can go away and negotiate their own tv deal then can the Celts say go to Sky and say , well make us an offer?

by Irish Londoner Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:14 am

Can anyone tell me, what BT's stance/role on all this has been?
I can understand that they've sucuessfully purchased the TV rights to the Jeff and beat SKY to those in the UK market and presumbaly are still happy to sell higlights to other boradcasters (ITV and presumably overseas).
Regarding the European compeition, did BT think that the PRL had got all the ducks in a row regarding the new competition and this was simply a case of buyng the rights to a HEC successor competition that had all been signed up to and it was just a matter of tidying up the small print or have they been actively pushing PRL to create a competition for them where previuosly there was none?
To get paranoid about it - did BT choose actively to wreck European rugby on the basis that if SKY have it we'd rather collapse the tournament than give English rugby fans reasons to stay with SKY rather than switch fully to BT on the basis that people with SKY would have just paid the extra £12 for BT Sport rather than having to do the full package switch to BT to get their domestic rugby fix - as after all BT's main concern in this is not running a sports channel (to an extent that's a "loss leader" but to get a larger share of the broadband market?

by Poorfour Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:14 am

Had beers last night with some guys who are very close to sports broadcasting. Their view was:
1) The PRL and LNR are currently asking for a bit more than parity but they reckon that they are aiming (and expecting) to settle for parity
2) The clubs vs unions point really does come down to keeping the FFR out of decision-making, because the PRL and RFU do get on, and for everyone else unions and clubs are the same
3) The ERC is the big sticking point - mainly because of the Sky deal. So actually, the quickest route to an answer is for BT to talk to Sky and hammer out something that enables the clubs and unions to agree a structure that doesn't lead to someone getting sued.

They weren't overly hopeful it would happen, though.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:27 am

Poorfour wrote:Had beers last night with some guys who are very close to sports broadcasting. Their view was:
1) The PRL and LNR are currently asking for a bit more than parity but they reckon that they are aiming (and expecting) to settle for parity
2) The clubs vs unions point really does come down to keeping the FFR out of decision-making, because the PRL and RFU do get on, and for everyone else unions and clubs are the same
3) The ERC is the big sticking point - mainly because of the Sky deal. So actually, the quickest route to an answer is for BT to talk to Sky and hammer out something that enables the clubs and unions to agree a structure that doesn't lead to someone getting sued.

They weren't overly hopeful it would happen, though.

That's a real shame, Poorfour, cos laid out as you have it above, it seems eminently sensible - altho I am bemused as to why the PRL/LNR might think that 'more than parity' would be acceptable to anyone, just so that they can back down to 'parity' and pretend that they've been magnanimous!

by Irish Londoner Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:30 am

ASBO - becuase they can then save face by explaining parity as a compromise - when this settles you can expect the various PRL spokesmen to start talking about how they saved European Rugby for us all!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:31 am

Irish Londoner wrote:ASBO - becuase they can then save face by explaining parity as a compromise - when this settles you can expect the various PRL spokesmen to start talking about how they saved European Rugby for us all!

Are they that shame-faced and duplicitous, or thing that us, the fans, are that stupid? No, don't answer that!!! furious

by broadlandboy Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:32 am

As,
I think it is a negotiation stand point. One side states their opening stance the other theirs & hopefully they meet somewhere between the 2

by TJ Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:34 am

Its not just the money tho - its the number of entrants. As well as the control issue

by lostinwales Fri 27 Sep 2013, 11:46 am

TJ wrote:Its not just the money tho - its the number of entrants. As well as the control issue

And the meaningful 2nd tier for those who dont make it to the top table- But then tier 2 doesnt mean much to rabo teams apart from a couple of extra games in a different competition if they didnt quite do well enough in the HEC group stages.

by TJ Fri 27 Sep 2013, 11:48 am

Wales. Italy and ireland have entrants into the amilin. Only Scotland does not

by HammerofThunor Fri 27 Sep 2013, 1:25 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Poorfour wrote:Had beers last night with some guys who are very close to sports broadcasting. Their view was:
1) The PRL and LNR are currently asking for a bit more than parity but they reckon that they are aiming (and expecting) to settle for parity
2) The clubs vs unions point really does come down to keeping the FFR out of decision-making, because the PRL and RFU do get on, and for everyone else unions and clubs are the same
3) The ERC is the big sticking point - mainly because of the Sky deal. So actually, the quickest route to an answer is for BT to talk to Sky and hammer out something that enables the clubs and unions to agree a structure that doesn't lead to someone getting sued.

They weren't overly hopeful it would happen, though.
That's a real shame, Poorfour, cos laid out as you have it above, it seems eminently sensible - altho I am bemused as to why the PRL/LNR might think that 'more than parity' would be acceptable to anyone, just so that they can back down to 'parity' and pretend that they've been magnanimous!

But what does parity even mean? At the moment they're asking for equal money/control to each team in the 'ERC', both tiers. Is that parity or not? It is if you look at leagues but not if you look at unions. Which is 'right'? Which is 'fair'?

by TJ Fri 27 Sep 2013, 1:34 pm

Exeter get the same money as leinster? would leinster not then be subsidising exeter by the PRL way of accounting? leinster are the bigger draw.

Its illogical to assert one way of accounting is fair for some teams and another fair for other teams.

to say you get the same amount of money per entrant and then reduce the number of entrants you get per union - is that fair?

fair is subjective depending on where you stand.

by **profitius** Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:10 pm

Anyone see this so called leak doing the rounds?

Basically it says the PRL need a cup involving at least 4 tier 1 nations. Otherwise BT will just cover their travel expenses.

by **profitius** Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:13 pm

TJ wrote:Exeter get the same money as leinster? would leinster not then be subsidising exeter by the PRL way of accounting? leinster are the bigger draw.

Its illogical to assert one way of accounting is fair for some teams and another fair for other teams.

to say you get the same amount of money per entrant and then reduce the number of entrants you get per union - is that fair?

fair is subjective depending on where you stand.

According to PRL logic Exeter have a far bigger audience among English supporters.

by Standulstermen Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:13 pm

profitius wrote:Anyone see this so called leak doing the rounds?

Basically it says the PRL need a cup involving at least 4 tier 1 nations. Otherwise BT will just cover their travel expenses.

Yep. If that report is half true then the PRL are in a seriously weak position.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:18 pm

profitius wrote:
TJ wrote:Exeter get the same money as leinster? would leinster not then be subsidising exeter by the PRL way of accounting? leinster are the bigger draw.

Its illogical to assert one way of accounting is fair for some teams and another fair for other teams.

to say you get the same amount of money per entrant and then reduce the number of entrants you get per union - is that fair?

fair is subjective depending on where you stand.
According to PRL logic Exeter have a far bigger audience among English supporters.

Even as a diehard Exe fan, I'd question that

by broadlandboy Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:24 pm

TJ you are missing the point between competing in an European comp & competing the HEC

by TJ Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:30 pm

No I am not.

by GunsGerms Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:33 pm

The PRLs proposed tournament is soooooooooo pie in the sky its comical. Jokes over now though, you have had your fun, can we not just go back to the Hcup - the best tournament in club rugby.

by TJ Fri 27 Sep 2013, 2:39 pm

Can we put it all on the merged thread - 3 running is too much. ta.

by niwatts Fri 27 Sep 2013, 3:40 pm

TJ wrote:Exeter get the same money as leinster? would leinster not then be subsidising exeter by the PRL way of accounting? leinster are the bigger draw.

Its illogical to assert one way of accounting is fair for some teams and another fair for other teams.

to say you get the same amount of money per entrant and then reduce the number of entrants you get per union - is that fair?

fair is subjective depending on where you stand.

Money per entrant into both competitions, not just to the HC. The unions would get the same money irrespective of which competition their clubs play in.

by The Great Aukster Sat 28 Sep 2013, 9:05 am

The Rugby Paper wrote:“If people are saying ‘no’ to new competitions, they have to have specific reasons for saying so,” McCafferty said. “No-one has articulated any reason yet.

“If they stop this, there would be no European competition. We have prepared for that.

PRL's refusal to negotiate or even speak to Graeme Mew shows that they have no interest in being part of a European competition on any terms but their own - and therefore no interest being part of a European competition. How can anyone "articulate any reason" if he refuses to be present?

"We have prepared for that" - sounds as though McCafferty expects there to be no European competition. By strange coincidence this is probably the best outcome for the majority of AP club owners (mid to lower table teams). They can expand the AP and be 100% in control without sharing their money with anyone. Half the teams don't make the elite European competition anyway and those that do aren't winning silver. Ultimately that's going to undermine their product, so it's better to say you have the best League in Europe rather than play in it and be proved wrong.
Of course the fans want their clubs in Europe, and the PRL can't pull out just for "financial reasons" so they cite a whole series of gripes about what is wrong with the ERC and withdraw. They spend some loose change on the marketing of the RCC to add a bit of credibility and then make entry to it by invitation. They then won't speak to the mediator appointed by the IRB just to underline the separation.

What surprises me is why English club fans aren't worried, do they not want to see European competition?

by HammerofThunor Sat 28 Sep 2013, 9:28 am

They can't expand the League as the RFU don't want them to.

Also they've said they'll speak to the moderator regarding setting up a new cup. But they won't speak to him about continuing the ERC.

by The Great Aukster Sat 28 Sep 2013, 10:02 am

The RFU can't oppose a Franglo and an expansion of the AP, given that the PRL teams won't play in the HEC. It has to be either the Franglo or an expanded AP, and the latter is a far more likely proposition, especially if the PRL are engineering it to be.

by Poorfour Sat 28 Sep 2013, 10:15 am

The Great Aukster wrote:The RFU can't oppose a Franglo and an expansion of the AP, given that the PRL teams won't play in the HEC. It has to be either the Franglo or an expanded AP, and the latter is a far more likely proposition, especially if the PRL are engineering it to be.

What makes you think they are engineering it to be? An expanded AP would be worth less to the clubs than a full European competition, and very hard to row back from if a Euro competition came along later. If they can't get something agreed this year, I think both the PRL and RFU would rather stick it out without it and fight for a new competition next year.

But I'm feeling more positive about it now. If the latest from the PRL - that 5-10 other teams are interested - is correct, then I think there's a chance of a resolution. It would be hard for the unions to say no if their teams are saying, "hey, this is OK and we could work with it", unless the ERC has done a deal with Sky that's even more stupid than the supposed BT deal.

I am tempted to make a sarky but all too plausible comment here, but it's too depressing so I will leave it there.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 28 Sep 2013, 10:16 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Poorfour wrote:Had beers last night with some guys who are very close to sports broadcasting. Their view was:
1) The PRL and LNR are currently asking for a bit more than parity but they reckon that they are aiming (and expecting) to settle for parity
2) The clubs vs unions point really does come down to keeping the FFR out of decision-making, because the PRL and RFU do get on, and for everyone else unions and clubs are the same
3) The ERC is the big sticking point - mainly because of the Sky deal. So actually, the quickest route to an answer is for BT to talk to Sky and hammer out something that enables the clubs and unions to agree a structure that doesn't lead to someone getting sued.

They weren't overly hopeful it would happen, though.
That's a real shame, Poorfour, cos laid out as you have it above, it seems eminently sensible - altho I am bemused as to why the PRL/LNR might think that 'more than parity' would be acceptable to anyone, just so that they can back down to 'parity' and pretend that they've been magnanimous!

It's a standard negotiation tactic isn't it? Assuming the "other side" will on principle refuse to meet initial demands and thus deliberately overreaching so that the compromise is actually the desired end point? The trouble is as everyone does it, the "other side" assume it will happen and will never cede to the initial offer and that just drives the cycle. It's Frak stupid if you ask me, but in my narrow experience of financial bargaining within the College it seems that everyone works like this and if you lay your cards on the table you are liable to be screwed

by HammerofThunor Sat 28 Sep 2013, 10:20 am

The RFU haven't said they'll oppose the Franglo. They have said said the oppose expanding the league.

by The Great Aukster Sat 28 Sep 2013, 11:08 am

Poorfour wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:The RFU can't oppose a Franglo and an expansion of the AP, given that the PRL teams won't play in the HEC. It has to be either the Franglo or an expanded AP, and the latter is a far more likely proposition, especially if the PRL are engineering it to be.
What makes you think they are engineering it to be? An expanded AP would be worth less to the clubs than a full European competition, and very hard to row back from if a Euro competition came along later. If they can't get something agreed this year, I think both the PRL and RFU would rather stick it out without it and fight for a new competition next year.

The non-conciliatory 'take it or leave it' stance is not one of a party seeking compromise and resolution. It is the kind of stance where if it comes off, great, but if it doesn't there is a plan almost as good - no middle ground.

An AP16 would be ideal for a few years until the yearning for Euro competition from the Unions would get too great. Rather than relegate teams from the AP, the PRL could promote say the top 4 into a Euro Super League. The volume of high quality games would be a marketeer's dream and still have the AP to populate a lower tier cup competition.

by HammerofThunor Sat 28 Sep 2013, 11:47 am

No it wouldn't. It would leave the championship less competitive as the best 4 clubs would be striped leaving only 4 with a reasonable professional structure. If the structure changes it will be to two 10 team tiers. And that is highly unlikely until the championship gets better.

The PRL aren't take it or leave it. They said they're leaving the ERC. Now they've defined the name of the new system they want to set up. Stakeholders, structure, finances are all yet to be determined.

by broadlandboy Sat 28 Sep 2013, 11:49 am

TGA, the ERC started the take it or leave it approach,they just didn't realise that PRL/LNR would chose to leave it

by Poorfour Sat 28 Sep 2013, 11:56 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
Poorfour wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:The RFU can't oppose a Franglo and an expansion of the AP, given that the PRL teams won't play in the HEC. It has to be either the Franglo or an expanded AP, and the latter is a far more likely proposition, especially if the PRL are engineering it to be.
What makes you think they are engineering it to be? An expanded AP would be worth less to the clubs than a full European competition, and very hard to row back from if a Euro competition came along later. If they can't get something agreed this year, I think both the PRL and RFU would rather stick it out without it and fight for a new competition next year.
The non-conciliatory 'take it or leave it' stance is not one of a party seeking compromise and resolution. It is the kind of stance where if it comes off, great, but if it doesn't there is a plan almost as good - no middle ground.

An AP16 would be ideal for a few years until the yearning for Euro competition from the Unions would get too great. Rather than relegate teams from the AP, the PRL could promote say the top 4 into a Euro Super League. The volume of high quality games would be a marketeer's dream and still have the AP to populate a lower tier cup competition.

The PRL and LNR would appear from what little is in the public domain to have spent several years being confronted with a non-conciliatory take-it-or-leave it attitude from the ERC and Celtic unions, which only changed when they stuck to their guns and served notice. Neither side has covered itself in glory, but the PRL and LNR have at least been trying to force a change rather than refusing to budge from a cosy position.

I kind of agree about an AP16 - though I am not sure it is practical. Firstly, who would the other 4 clubs be? I guess candidates would be Bristol, Leeds, London Welsh, Cornish Pirates and maybe Nottingham or Bedford. But that's a lot of clubs having to make a big step up - Newcastle showed last year that the standard of even a weak, rebuilding AP side is a notch higher than Championship. Secondly, and AP16 would mean 30 league games per year, which would mean ditching the LV and playing through the international windows, and would still result in more games overall.

But most importantly, what would you do when European competition is resurrected? The new promotees and weaker AP teams are not going to sign up for a competition knowing they could be unceremoniously dumped in a year or two to make way for Heino 2. It could only work if there were a built in exit strategy - one option would be an agreement to split the league into two 8 team conferences, with each team playing Home and Away within the conference and alternating Home or Away each year with the other conference. But that would feel pretty artificial. You'd also have to cut the conferences quite carefully to make them competitive.

by Pot Hale Sat 28 Sep 2013, 4:54 pm

Deleted

by The Great Aukster Sat 28 Sep 2013, 6:31 pm

Poorfour wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Poorfour wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:The RFU can't oppose a Franglo and an expansion of the AP, given that the PRL teams won't play in the HEC. It has to be either the Franglo or an expanded AP, and the latter is a far more likely proposition, especially if the PRL are engineering it to be.
What makes you think they are engineering it to be? An expanded AP would be worth less to the clubs than a full European competition, and very hard to row back from if a Euro competition came along later. If they can't get something agreed this year, I think both the PRL and RFU would rather stick it out without it and fight for a new competition next year.
The non-conciliatory 'take it or leave it' stance is not one of a party seeking compromise and resolution. It is the kind of stance where if it comes off, great, but if it doesn't there is a plan almost as good - no middle ground.

An AP16 would be ideal for a few years until the yearning for Euro competition from the Unions would get too great. Rather than relegate teams from the AP, the PRL could promote say the top 4 into a Euro Super League. The volume of high quality games would be a marketeer's dream and still have the AP to populate a lower tier cup competition.
The PRL and LNR would appear from what little is in the public domain to have spent several years being confronted with a non-conciliatory take-it-or-leave it attitude from the ERC and Celtic unions, which only changed when they stuck to their guns and served notice. Neither side has covered itself in glory, but the PRL and LNR have at least been trying to force a change rather than refusing to budge from a cosy position.

I kind of agree about an AP16 - though I am not sure it is practical. Firstly, who would the other 4 clubs be? I guess candidates would be Bristol, Leeds, London Welsh, Cornish Pirates and maybe Nottingham or Bedford. But that's a lot of clubs having to make a big step up - Newcastle showed last year that the standard of even a weak, rebuilding AP side is a notch higher than Championship. Secondly, and AP16 would mean 30 league games per year, which would mean ditching the LV and playing through the international windows, and would still result in more games overall.

But most importantly, what would you do when European competition is resurrected? The new promotees and weaker AP teams are not going to sign up for a competition knowing they could be unceremoniously dumped in a year or two to make way for Heino 2. It could only work if there were a built in exit strategy - one option would be an agreement to split the league into two 8 team conferences, with each team playing Home and Away within the conference and alternating Home or Away each year with the other conference. But that would feel pretty artificial. You'd also have to cut the conferences quite carefully to make them competitive.

I'm not an ERC apologist or condoning their action/inaction, but rather just pointing out that the PRL don't seem to be in the market for negotiation. Again I'm not advocating an AP16, but if I were the PRL having an expanded domestic league would be a legitimate target, as indeed would a European League (not Cup). Currently there are 22 League games plus 6 guaranteed ERC games so two more games per season isn't massive especially as there will be slots available at the end of the season when the ERC playoffs would have taken place.

The Euro Super League has been a coveted concept for the elite clubs for some time, so obviously the PRL would be keen to get a piece of that action. Allowing the top European teams to leave their domestic leagues is something the Unions wouldn't like but if they were starved of European competition for a few years who knows what they would accede to? So if say four teams were "promoted" to the Super League that would naturally revert the AP to 12 teams - no relegation necessary.

by broadlandboy Sat 28 Sep 2013, 6:53 pm

The PRL/LNR have repeatedly said they will talk to the Unions,they have just said that they will not talk to the ERC.They know full well that most of the RABO teams have some input from their Unions so by talking to the teams the Unions are involved also they know nthat they need Union/IRB approval.They are starting to get things moving(ie the name) because they realise that some urgancy is needed(unlike the ERC) to get everything in place with only a year to go.They have provided a basic plan they want to implement but until they know who will be taking part are unable to give specifics. It is up to the Rabo teams/Unions to negotiate their terms to enter the competition.

by Totalflanker Sat 28 Sep 2013, 8:54 pm

BB - have to disagree. Middle ground has to be the way, ERC look like they might be on the way out, but likewise the acrimony that the PRL have created with their media press-ganging and lack of detail on the BT deal, suggest that the specifics need to come first before anyone will signup. Also with the way things have gone and the egos involved will be very surprised if its called the RCC.

It will have to be a new name and structure or not at all next year.

by broadlandboy Sat 28 Sep 2013, 9:04 pm

Probably but things need to get moving

by Totalflanker Sat 28 Sep 2013, 9:55 pm

Absolutely - they need to get a move on. But SKY/BT are the stumbling blocks. Both will see their contracts as legitimate but they contradict one and other. Someone is going to take a financial hit and would bet it ain't going to be SKY or BT.

by broadlandboy Sat 28 Sep 2013, 10:08 pm

Which came about from ERC signing a deal for a competition that didnt exist where as PRL was an agreement that IF PRL teams were involved BTS would broadcast their Matches ,whether it includes away matches is unclear at the moment,which would have been part of the talks for a new accord

by Totalflanker Sun 29 Sep 2013, 8:34 am

This is were the greyness comes in. Yup ERC sold something they shouldn't have without PRL invovlement. But by the same token PRL have done the same. If they just sold AP games then no worries and no secrecy required over the deal, but they haven't. They have sold some European rights, whether just their home games or not, they have through unilateral action impacted the commercial potential of the other stakeholders, by not allowing it to be marketed and sold as a whole.

Legally PRL potentially have a stronger leg to stand on, selling what is theirs but not if they want others to play with them (which as some on here have suggested is when the contract actually starts to be financially viable).

by Guest Sun 29 Sep 2013, 11:01 am

Where does that leave the french and Italians who have their own tv deals which as I understand include euro games? I suspect the sum of the parts would be greater than the central pot but there would potentially be some losers, which is why Unions want to tie in the english clubs to the deal.

Thus far that has been accepted by english clubs but the french have stolen a march, particularly where they do not have to invest in stadia which the loss making english clubs still need to undertake but cannot without a clear and viable future, which the BT deal offers.

by Pot Hale Sun 29 Sep 2013, 12:10 pm

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL/LNR have repeatedly said they will talk to the Unions,they have just said that they will not talk to the ERC.They know full well that most of the RABO teams have some input from their Unions so by talking to the teams the Unions are involved also they know nthat they need Union/IRB approval.They are starting to get things moving(ie the name) because they realise that some urgancy is needed(unlike the ERC) to get everything in place with only a year to go.They have provided a basic plan they want to implement but until they know who will be taking part are unable to give specifics. It is up to the Rabo teams/Unions to negotiate their terms to enter the competition.

It's becoming apparent that the ERC is for the high jump, with the four Pro12 unions all citing the IRB as their bulwark, rather than the ERC, in their recently timed press statements. I think it's fair to assume the ERC is going to go, if there is to be agreement on any new competition.

Clearly, if there are to be discussions, then PRL/LNR will have to talk to the Unions from all 6 Nations and persuade them of their case. The PRL, one hopes, fully understand and appreciate that the set up of rugby structures and clubs/regions in the four PRO12 countries is different than that of England or France. If they are serious in their intent to be inclusive of these countries and their teams, then they must recognise the organisational realities that come with them. Stating that the European Cup is a club competition that should be run by clubs is either mischievous or simply ignorant in its intent, when they know full well that the Irish provinces, for example, are all set up and funded by the IRFU, and they cannot act without input or approval from their union.

The trumpeting of a new name is hardly a major step - anyone can come up with a new name over a few beers. To say they are "unable" to give any specifics is perhaps stretching credibility too far. A couple of Premiership club chairmen made specific statements, and I think a French one too, that any revenues from the new comp would be done on the basis that England and France would be taking 66%, with the remainder to be divided between whichever unions/clubs take part. For the IRFU or WRU, therefore, they are being presented with a fait accompli, in which they are likely to receive no more than 8 or 9% each. Leinster, trumpeted by the PRL money-men as eager to join, could not negotiate their own terms to enter the competition. Neither could Munster, Ulster or Connacht. The PRL/LNR know this full well. At best, their involvement can be negotiated by their Union - there is no bigger or overarching organisation to act on their collective behalf.

So if there is to be a new competition, what is really up for discussion? If the PRL/LNR want to get rid of the ERC, then should any discussion of a new competition format, finances, power/control, not start with a clean sheet if it is to be meritocratic and fair?

If the PRL speaks the truth when it says that it has no wish to tell another league how to organise its competition, or a national union on how it organises/manages its rugby within its territory, then they must accept the realities that are there, and work with them.

If this new competition is be a proper European cup, involving more than just two countries, then it behooves those two promoting countries to act accordingly, and to seek genuine agreement taking into account the differing needs and requirements of their prospective country partners, rather than attempting to treat them as a single homogenous lump.

Bombastic rhetoric from media rooftops about how the PRO12 clubs are doomed financially if they don't get on board and fall into line is not the way to go about this. Mutually assured destruction statements are not helping matters either (whereby no competition would be held through stubborn intransigence by both sides), but neither is the other extreme where participants are being told they can join on their own terms, as long as they are the English and French terms.

This is not to argue that the status quo should hold sway. Clearly everybody recognises that change must happen. It is who instigates and participates in that change, and what safeguards can be put in place to ensure that greater inequities do not arise as a consequence within some of the smaller rugby unions, that is what matters.

by The Great Aukster Sun 29 Sep 2013, 12:34 pm

Recwatcher wrote:Where does that leave the french and Italians who have their own tv deals which as I understand include euro games? I suspect the sum of the parts would be greater than the central pot but there would potentially be some losers, which is why Unions want to tie in the english clubs to the deal.

Thus far that has been accepted by english clubs but the french have stolen a march, particularly where they do not have to invest in stadia which the loss making english clubs still need to undertake but cannot without a clear and viable future, which the BT deal offers.

So is the BT deal just for PRL team home games or all PRL games or all European games? If it's for just their home games then surely the rest of the Unions involved have the rights to sell their home games too? If it's for all the games then how are the French and Italians supposed to sell their tv rights?

BT have targeted Sky's broadband customers and pumped money into BTS to wrench content away from Sky Sports. The whole secrecy surrounding the PRL deal must be to ensure Sky have no chance to bid for the broadcast rights to European rugby. In the absence of clarification how can the PRL think the other unions are going to join them when potentially they could sell their own TV rights?

by The Great Aukster Sun 29 Sep 2013, 1:12 pm

Good summary PH thumbsup

Pot Hale wrote:The trumpeting of a new name is hardly a major step - anyone can come up with a new name over a few beers.

I think whoever came up with that name had more than a few.
1. No mention of a subsidiary competition, indicates that doesn't matter
2. No mention of 'Europe' indicating that doesn't matter
3. It's hardly a Champions tournament especially as some of the Champions (e.g. Italian) may not even be involved.
4. It's far too similar sounding to the Rugby Championship, to have good brand appeal (and might be contested).
5. What is the winner know as? - The Rugby Champions Cup Champions Laugh

by nathan Sun 29 Sep 2013, 1:19 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:Good summary PH

Pot Hale wrote:The trumpeting of a new name is hardly a major step - anyone can come up with a new name over a few beers.
I think whoever came up with that name had more than a few.
1. No mention of a subsidiary competition, indicates that doesn't matter
2. No mention of 'Europe' indicating that doesn't matter
3. It's hardly a Champions tournament especially as some of the Champions (e.g. Italian) may not even be involved.
4. It's far too similar sounding to the Rugby Championship, to have good brand appeal (and might be contested).
5. What is the winner know as? - The Rugby Champions Cup Champions

1) We have little information, to assume the 2nd tier competition doesn't matter because the name hasn't been announced is daft.
2) You mean like the Heineken Cup, eh?
3) It would be more of a champions cup than the current one.
4) Possible true
5) if your moaning about number 4 then i guess you also think the Rugby Championship is an awful name too.

by HammerofThunor Sun 29 Sep 2013, 2:25 pm

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/old-guard-losing-ground-in-battle-for-control-of-europe-29618543.html

This says that the proposals are for 2 20 team cups. Nothing on 3rd tier but hopefully that's for discussion IF the other is agreed

by The Great Aukster Sun 29 Sep 2013, 8:42 pm

nathan wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Good summary PH

Pot Hale wrote:The trumpeting of a new name is hardly a major step - anyone can come up with a new name over a few beers.
I think whoever came up with that name had more than a few.
1. No mention of a subsidiary competition, indicates that doesn't matter
2. No mention of 'Europe' indicating that doesn't matter
3. It's hardly a Champions tournament especially as some of the Champions (e.g. Italian) may not even be involved.
4. It's far too similar sounding to the Rugby Championship, to have good brand appeal (and might be contested).
5. What is the winner know as? - The Rugby Champions Cup Champions
1) We have little information, to assume the 2nd tier competition doesn't matter because the name hasn't been announced is daft.
2) You mean like the Heineken Cup, eh?
3) It would be more of a champions cup than the current one.
4) Possible true
5) if your moaning about number 4 then i guess you also think the Rugby Championship is an awful name too.

1. We have little information because it hasn't been deemed important enough to disseminate. Are the PRL withholding important information and if so why?
2. Yes exactly like the European Rugby Cup (before they sold the naming rights).
3. So with fewer champions it would be more than the current one... interesting maths.
4&5 Glad you agree. The Rugby Championship is indeed an awfully pretentious name.

by TJ Sun 29 Sep 2013, 9:10 pm

The PRL said they may speak to the unions - maybe - but they have categorically ruled out any role for unions in running their imaginary cup. That is simply unacceptable.

by Pot Hale Sun 29 Sep 2013, 11:35 pm

TJ wrote:The PRL said they may speak to the unions - maybe - but they have categorically ruled out any role for unions in running their imaginary cup. That is simply unacceptable.

When did they categorically rule out any role for unions in running the RCC?

by **profitius** Mon 30 Sep 2013, 1:01 am

Serge Blanco was on the radio tonight and questioned the LRN's negotiating tactics.

by Sponsored content