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...?

Well none of the Regions make a profit yet (projected is projected, Scarlets projected they would be in profit break even (edit: see Casartelli's post below) several years ago and failed). Also those figures for PRL were 3 years ago and the combined loss dropped by 25% from the previous year.

Regarding the last bit...that's the point. The English clubs have a fixed cap. If it was tied to turnover Bath, Saracens, etc couldn't do that.

HammerofThunor wrote:Oh and again, I've said this several times recently, the PRL is controlled by the mid-bottom sides. The ones likely/possibly in the CC. They want being in the CC to better, including improving competition as a whole.

I don't think that's quite true - I think it is that all the AP sides have an equal say in the PRL, with the possible exception of the newly promoted side, because the PRL shares don't automatically follow promotion. But the point is largely valid - because the sides who don't always get in the HEC have a proper voice, the PRL as a whole has an agenda to strengthen the Amlin as well.

Actually, it's noticeable that the most frequent dissenters from the PRL line are Leicester - who I am pretty sure are the only English team who have always qualified for the HEC.

One of the big issues with the CC is that only the English teams care much about it at the moment, at least until the HEC teams drop in in the QFs - the French earn so little from it that they scarcely bother, and the Pro12 nations are too busy with the HEC.

HammerofThunor wrote:It might have been a dream as I'm struggling to find it.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/dodson-stands-firm-on-5m-heineken-cup-pot-for-sru-1-2969914

THE SRU will not battle the English and French clubs to keep both Edinburgh and Glasgow in the Heineken Cup, but they will insist that if one drops out there is no financial penalty for Scottish rugby.

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding the last bit...that's the point. The English clubs have a fixed cap. If it was tied to turnover Bath, Saracens, etc couldn't do that.

Bath and Saracens both operate at a loss. Reducing the Wage Cap by half a million pounds would definitely make life easier for them to make their model a sustainable one. Plus at least five AP clubs can't afford a squad at the value of the current cap.

The basics of this entire debacle rise from AP and T14 clubs living massively beyond their means and needing to have to work out an alternative. Instead of restricting the spending of their clubs they want to screw others out of more TV money or just ruin those clubs participation in the competition that they profit from most.

It is both mean and cruel, what is even worse is the amount of blokes on this forum who claim to be fans of the sport of rugby that couldn't give two hoots...

I am a rugby fan first and foremost, I support my teams after that. It is prosperity of the game as a whole I want to see. Profits are a potential bi-product.

It was the 606 article I might have dreamed. Wow, I may have to face the fact the things I get most annoyed with are fabrications in my own head. I need to stop Project Mayhem.

Poorfour, I meant that there are more clubs that are concerned with the CC than not. Only 3 or 4 are probably completely safe from it. Since more ARE concerned with it and they have equal votes the
PRL as an entity IS concerned with it. The PRL is not dominated by the rich clubs and if anything they complain about it because it 'holds them back'

HammerofThunor wrote:Well none of the Regions make a profit yet (projected is projected, Scarlets projected they would be in profit several years ago and failed). Also those figures for PRL were 3 years ago and the combined loss dropped by 25% from the previous year.

Regarding the last bit...that's the point. The English clubs have a fixed cap. If it was tied to turnover Bath, Saracens, etc couldn't do that.

Far be it from me to defend the Scarlets, but they never projected a profit in their 'forecasted financials' - they said they'd breakeven. This assumes that the local authority continues not charging interest on their multi-million pound loan. If they ever do then the forecast changes from breakeven to doom.

Maesteg, what happens when Nottingham and Pirates can moneybags backer to fund the £3.5M cap? Do we drop it to £2.5M? Having a fixed cap does nothing for sustainability in the long terms. If you want sustainability it has to be tied to turnover.

How would bring the Irish Central contracts into this fixed cap?

Casartelli wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Well none of the Regions make a profit yet (projected is projected, Scarlets projected they would be in profit several years ago and failed). Also those figures for PRL were 3 years ago and the combined loss dropped by 25% from the previous year.

Regarding the last bit...that's the point. The English clubs have a fixed cap. If it was tied to turnover Bath, Saracens, etc couldn't do that.

Far be it from me to defend the Scarlets, but they never projected a profit in their 'forecasted financials' - they said they'd breakeven.  This assumes that the local authority continues not charging interest on their multi-million pound loan.  If they ever do then the forecast changes from breakeven to doom.

Cheers  

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Seriously? You think the PRL should publicly disclose details of a tournament that are a) still a long way from being finalised, b) commercially sensitive and c) to be negotiated with other parties who've hitherto declined to negotiate. And for the benefit of a bunch of fans who will dislike whatever's proposed on principle?

Crikey. I bet they're seriously considering it, because the opinions of a bunch of internet know-alls are far more important than proper negotiations. Obviously.

Reading your post while easily skipping your attempts to patronise anyone who disagrees with you, what you are saying is:-


a) The PRL/BT Vision will come up with something last minute if they actually get their way at the expense of everyone else in world rugby's wishes.

b) The ERC might steal the PRLs concept for a tournament that in the above part a). you agree they haven't really actually invented yet because they might not need to invent it.

c) Waiting game to see if world rugby will actually cave in to the pressures the PRL have been threatening to use since they were created.



Its more like a hostage situation than any negotiation i have ever heard of...!

Well, forgive me my sarcasm. If you check back through my posts I think you'll find I've tried very hard over a long period to be respectful and constructive, often in the face of sarcasm, dismissive attitudes and occasional ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, this thread really is hard to take seriously. What you've written above is not what I was saying. It may be what you want to hear or want to think is going on, but as far as I can tell you've made no serious attempt even to understand what I was saying.

a) "still a long way from being finalised" - the PRL only withdrew from negotiating with ERC a week ago. While I am sure they have outline plans in place, there is a lot that is unclear. For instance, they don't know how many other teams will join, so they don't even know the final number of clubs.

b) "commercially sensitive" - this does not mean that they are worried about the ERC stealing a concept. As far as I can see, the ERC is a busted flush. I can't see any circumstances in which the LNR or PRL would accept the current ERC as the organiser for a future tournament, even if the new tournament is still called the HEC. What I mean is that the PRL and LNR need to agree the tournament details with other parties - the participating unions and potentially the RRW - and that declaring a definite hand before discussing that reduces everyone's flexibility to negotiate.

c) Is the real point. You apparently don't want to believe it, but the PRL and LNR have an interest in ensuring that the tournament is as inclusive as possible and that it balances the participating leagues' or teams' interests well enough that it's sustainable for the long term. Renegotiating tournaments is - as we are seeing fraught, expensive and very disruptive to making them successful. But different teams are likely to want different things and these need to be negotiated. I doubt that everyone's ideal situation can be accommodated, and those who negotiate first (sounds like the RRW and SRU may be quicker to move than the IRFU) may gain an advantage relative to latecomers.

I can't guarantee that these are true, because I don't have insider knowledge. But the PRL members are generally club owners who have both a long association with rugby and a successful business career behind them. However much you want to believe the opposite, their behaviour suggests that they are in it for the long haul. Take the salary cap. It's an absolute amount and not based on turnover because an absolute limit stops clubs with high turnover (like Leicester) from being able to pull too far ahead of clubs that are building their fanbase and revenues from a much lower starting point. Someone else has posted stats that show how competitive the AP is - it's largely a result of that salary cap (and the playoffs, qualification and relegation ensuring that nearly every match counts). Yes, they are interested in the success of their clubs and league ahead of anything else, but they've also negotiated deals with the RFU that have improved the supply of EQPs (academy credits and the EQP bonus) and access to the EPS (the new longform agreement).

What evidence is there that they won't negotiate terms with the Celts and Italians that are workable for everyone in the long term? All we've seen so far are their proposals for changing the ERC, which have basically amounted to removing the wild disparities that teams in different leagues face in money and qualification, and giving the teams control of a team-based competition. These proposals are less advantageous for the Pro 12 teams than the current setup, but the heart of the issue is that the current setup is very advantageous for the Pro 12 teams and very disadvantageous for the PRL and LNR. They haven't proposed anything that reverses that balance - only something that achieves a roughly level playing field. That's what I think they will aim for, because anything else - as I think we all agree - pretty quickly becomes self-destructive.

There. I have set things out - as I see them - as clearly and in as balanced a way as I know how. I will happily acknowledge that a union-based view of the situation is very different, and we can agree to differ about whether that is the right one or not. But I hope we can agree that the realpolitik is that any future competition will be organised in a much more team-centric way.

How about crediting these successful millionaire businessmen with enough strategic nous to know that there's no point setting up a competition that's doomed to fail? And that getting it to work is going to involve thrashing out the details with the other participants that they hope will join, rather than presenting them with a fait accompli?

maes wrote:Just looking at the Welsh Regions who implemented the same £3.5m cap a year ago and have changed from debt to projected profit in one fiscal year shows how well it works.

To be realistic maes, the maintenance of competitive squads is now difficult in Wales whilst haemorrhaging players (and it seems likely not to be stemmed before next season).

The fact remains that international agreement and compliance would be required to 'level the playing field.

Certainly there's a lot of suspicion that here in England the compliance bit is being manipulated by dodgy accounting and marquee payments.

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Seriously? You think the PRL should publicly disclose details of a tournament that are a) still a long way from being finalised, b) commercially sensitive and c) to be negotiated with other parties who've hitherto declined to negotiate. And for the benefit of a bunch of fans who will dislike whatever's proposed on principle?

Crikey. I bet they're seriously considering it, because the opinions of a bunch of internet know-alls are far more important than proper negotiations. Obviously.

Reading your post while easily skipping your attempts to patronise anyone who disagrees with you, what you are saying is:-


a) The PRL/BT Vision will come up with something last minute if they actually get their way at the expense of everyone else in world rugby's wishes.

b) The ERC might steal the PRLs concept for a tournament that in the above part a). you agree they haven't really actually invented yet because they might not need to invent it.

c) Waiting game to see if world rugby will actually cave in to the pressures the PRL have been threatening to use since they were created.



Its more like a hostage situation than any negotiation i have ever heard of...!

Well, forgive me my sarcasm. If you check back through my posts I think you'll find I've tried very hard over a long period to be respectful and constructive, often in the face of sarcasm, dismissive attitudes and occasional ad hominem attacks.  Unfortunately, this thread really is hard to take seriously. What you've written above is not what I was saying. It may be what you want to hear or want to think is going on, but as far as I can tell you've made no serious attempt even to understand what I was saying.

a) "still a long way from being finalised" - the PRL only withdrew from negotiating with ERC a week ago. While I am sure they have outline plans in place, there is a lot that is unclear. For instance, they don't know how many other teams will join, so they don't even know the final number of clubs.

b) "commercially sensitive" - this does not mean that they are worried about the ERC stealing a concept. As far as I can see, the ERC is a busted flush. I can't see any circumstances in which the LNR or PRL would accept the current ERC as the organiser for a future tournament, even if the new tournament is still called the HEC. What I mean is that the PRL and LNR need to agree the tournament details with other parties - the participating unions and potentially the RRW - and that declaring a definite hand before discussing that reduces everyone's flexibility to negotiate.

c) Is the real point. You apparently don't want to believe it, but the PRL and LNR have an interest in ensuring that the tournament is as inclusive as possible and that it balances the participating leagues' or teams' interests well enough that it's sustainable for the long term. Renegotiating tournaments is - as we are seeing fraught, expensive and very disruptive to making them successful. But different teams are likely to want different things and these need to be negotiated. I doubt that everyone's ideal situation can be accommodated, and those who negotiate first (sounds like the RRW and SRU may be quicker to move than the IRFU) may gain an advantage relative to latecomers.

I can't guarantee that these are true, because I don't have insider knowledge. But the PRL members are generally club owners who have both a long association with rugby and a successful business career behind them. However much you want to believe the opposite, their behaviour suggests that they are in it for the long haul. Take the salary cap. It's an absolute amount and not based on turnover because an absolute limit stops clubs with high turnover (like Leicester) from being able to pull too far ahead of clubs that are building their fanbase and revenues from a much lower starting point. Someone else has posted stats that show how competitive the AP is - it's largely a result of that salary cap (and the playoffs, qualification and relegation ensuring that nearly every match counts). Yes, they are interested in the success of their clubs and league ahead of anything else, but they've also negotiated deals with the RFU that have improved the supply of EQPs (academy credits and the EQP bonus) and access to the EPS (the new longform agreement).

What evidence is there that they won't negotiate terms with the Celts and Italians that are workable for everyone in the long term? All we've seen so far are their proposals for changing the ERC, which have basically amounted to removing the wild disparities that teams in different leagues face in money and qualification, and giving the teams control of a team-based competition. These proposals are less advantageous for the Pro 12 teams than the current setup, but the heart of the issue is that the current setup is very advantageous for the Pro 12 teams and very disadvantageous for the PRL and LNR. They haven't proposed anything that reverses that balance - only something that achieves a roughly level playing field. That's what I think they will aim for, because anything else - as I think we all agree - pretty quickly becomes self-destructive.

There. I have set things out - as I see them - as clearly and in as balanced a way as I know how. I will happily acknowledge that a union-based view of the situation is very different, and we can agree to differ about whether that is the right one or not. But I hope we can agree that the realpolitik is that any future competition will be organised in a much more team-centric way.

How about crediting these successful millionaire businessmen with enough strategic nous to know that there's no point setting up a competition that's doomed to fail? And that getting it to work is going to involve thrashing out the details with the other participants that they hope will join, rather than presenting them with a fait accompli?

To me this seems a clear summary of the current situation and whilst I'm sure there are many and varied vested interests, at the end of the day the PRL and LNR are going to want an attractive competition that generates money. To achieve that they are going to need strong and viable PRO 12 teams in the mix.

HammerofThunor wrote:Quick question. How much were sky paying for the current deal? How much do people get for a EC team and how much for a CC team?

I'm also curious about how much the BBC give for the Pro12 W, S and NI individually.

How much do the teams get for the LV cup?

Does this detail EVER get released? Usually if the money goes up it's released as a general figure but that's it.

I'd be very interested to know Hammer.  These details are never really available. Or viable match day attendances. Or viable TV viewership figures.

stub wrote:

To me this seems a clear summary of the current situation and whilst I'm sure there are many and varied vested interests, at the end of the day the PRL and LNR are going to want an attractive competition that generates money. To achieve that they are going to need strong and viable PRO 12 teams in the mix.

In which case 6/6/6 is unworkable as is the disparity in finances.

TJ wrote:

stub wrote:

To me this seems a clear summary of the current situation and whilst I'm sure there are many and varied vested interests, at the end of the day the PRL and LNR are going to want an attractive competition that generates money. To achieve that they are going to need strong and viable PRO 12 teams in the mix.

In which case 6/6/6 is unworkable as is the disparity in finances.

Why? When every team gets the same.

Money paid out by ERC to unions & clubs for the year to June 2012 was €45m.
No figures available for June 2013 yet.
No official breakdown of how this figure was split across the unions/clubs.

TJ wrote:

stub wrote:

To me this seems a clear summary of the current situation and whilst I'm sure there are many and varied vested interests, at the end of the day the PRL and LNR are going to want an attractive competition that generates money. To achieve that they are going to need strong and viable PRO 12 teams in the mix.

In which case 6/6/6 is unworkable as is the disparity in finances.

Do you not think that there will be enough money in a new Euro comp to ensure that a strong viable PRO 12 can be maintained? Because I really believe that it is in everyone's interests to make sure the PRO 12 remains competitive.

There is enough money but for the pro 12 to remain strong and viable 2 things are needed - more than 6 pro 12 teams in the HC and a lessening of the financial disparities not an increase. the PRL want to use the reduction in representation to justify reducing the pro 2 share of the money. If power and wealth gets concentrated in a few the rest get relativly poorer, get priced out of the transfer market and without HC games they become less attractive to sponsers and so on.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:

stub wrote:

To me this seems a clear summary of the current situation and whilst I'm sure there are many and varied vested interests, at the end of the day the PRL and LNR are going to want an attractive competition that generates money. To achieve that they are going to need strong and viable PRO 12 teams in the mix.

In which case 6/6/6 is unworkable as is the disparity in finances.

Why? When every team gets the same.

overall budgets. the pro 12 teams would be relativly poorer as the prl teams get richer.

So you're saying the ERC money should be used to smooth out the fact the Jeff and T14 are worth more than the Pro12

TJ - so maybe there is a basis for negotiation there that could lead to all parties ending up with a situation they can live with?

HammerofThunor wrote:So you're saying the ERC money should be used to smooth out the fact the Jeff and T14 are worth more than the Pro12

Yup. If you weant a competative and sustainlable europe wide game. Be happy for some of the dosh to be spread wider as well

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So you're saying the ERC money should be used to smooth out the fact the Jeff and T14 are worth more than the Pro12

Yup. If you weant a competative and sustainlable europe wide game.  Be happy for some of the dosh to be spread wider as well

So if the ERC money distribution is being artificially distributed to finance the Pro12 they're being subsidised by the English and French? In the same way the teams without many EPS players are subsidised by those that do.

No - its not a subsidy. a subsidy is a transfer of money from one person to anther. This is using a small amount of the profits generated by all to help the disadvantaged. the profit is generated by the European cup - and as we can see the franglos cannot have a european cup without the rest.

If we want healthy competitive European rugby then the minnows need to get some support to help them.

Its the same as the way the english league distribute their share. Its virtually all generated by the 6 in the HC but the english league have deceided to share it out equally thus ensuring a level playing feild despite only half th teams generating the cash

I have long argued for this to be extended to the real minnows - and to let them enter as nations

Ok forget subsidise, I don't want to get into a semantic argument.

But it's not about a fair distribution within the competition but driven by external factors?

Depends on how you see fair? fair is very subjective. making an already poor cousin relatively less well of seems unfair to me.

But yes - semantics aside I would want to see the profits from the european cup used to level out the disadvantages some face - much as it is right now. the biggest anomaly is between the Italians and the Scots really. remeber the amlin produces no significant profit so only 6 teams from england actually earn a share of the pot

TJ so doyou agree how the Pro 12 league money is split?
Seems a case of do as we say rather than what we do

So just how many threads do we need to say exactly the same things on?

HammerofThunor wrote:So you're saying the ERC money should be used to smooth out the fact the Jeff and T14 are worth more than the Pro12

They're getting twice as much as the other unions. Its probably their worth considering there'd be no European cup without Pro12 teams.


The Scots and Italians teams are getting more than the Irish teams too if you want to look at it that way. I never heard an Irish person complain about that because its supposed to be split per union.


Also if you want to look at what league is worth more than maybe look to see what games are on sky. I know Munster are almost always on while most English teams can only be seen by pressing the red button. Maybe that shows who is more popular, just like Real MAdrid and Barcelona are almost always on TV when the Spanish league is showing.

broadlandboy wrote:TJ so doyou agree how the Pro 12 league money is split?
Seems a case of do as we say rather than what we do

No I have said. the real anomaly is the italians getting less than the scots. I would aslo happily use some of the profits to help the real tiny minnows

You mean like a third tier that teams could qualify for the higher comps, wonder if any one has proposed that?????????

LondonTiger wrote:So just how many threads do we need to say exactly the same things on?

infinite, as the fanboys dont want to hear it. don't worry though, financial reality will bite soon enough without PRL/LNR in the HC.

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

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

Well to that hypothetical person either
1) they breached confidentiality and should be sacked, etc.
2) not bound by confidentiality and in which case should be open about who they are if they expect to be taken seriously.

if this is true two things will happen
E is no Den sacked and sued
no european competition next year and all around carnage

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I love the way we are moral crusaders for not wanting it up the ass from the prl.

Are we back to that darkened room story again?

cakeordeath wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I love the way we are moral crusaders for not wanting it up the ass from the prl.

Are we back to that darkened room story again?

Eh?

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:if this is true two things will happen
E is no Den sacked and sued
no european competition next year and all around carnage

Also, someone at the PRL will be sacked for agreeing a ludicrously risky contract that leaves no room for manoeuvre. If the PRL have signed a contract like that then they would have committed to getting everything going their way at a ridiculously early stage of proceedings - not long after they served notice. Given that at this point they had just given up trying to negotiate with the other ERC members, that's a stupidly ballsy strategy.

But it's equally stupid for BT to structure a contract that way. BT are getting into broadcasting to protect their huge phone and broadband revenues, and they need distinctive content. They definitely want a strong European cup, but structuring a contract that would seriously damage the PRL clubs if the European cup doesn't come off is as dangerous for BT as it is for the PRL.

Think about it for a minute. If there's no European league, under this supposed contract, the PRL will lose so much money it might go under. If that happens, BT are left with nothing. In fact, worse than that, they're left in a position where no-one will be prepared to deal with them because of what happened to the PRL.

It's in BT's interest to secure the AP as their rugby bedrock, and then play a longer game over Europe.

So we're left with 3 options:
- 2 major commercial organisations have structured a contract that actually works for neither of them
- It's a genuine story, but the message has been garbled or misinterpreted along the way. Possible. It's a very brief summary of what is undoubtedly a complex contract
- It's a windup.

I call the latter. It's a good windup, but a windup nonetheless.

If the BT deal was remotely close to those terms, the PRL would be determined to smash the current ERC, not negotiate on anything, and keep the details of any deals secret... hang on...

have to agree. if this is what PRL negotiated then maybe the TV rights should revert to a 9 year old child with basic common sense?!?!?!

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:have to agree. if this is what PRL negotiated then maybe the TV rights should revert to a 9 year old child with basic common sense?!?!?!

+1

The Great Aukster wrote:If the BT deal was remotely close to those terms, the PRL would be determined to smash the current ERC, not negotiate on anything, and keep the details of any deals secret... hang on...

The ERC was gone when the clubs gave notice. That was the whole point of giving notice.

 

HammerofThunor wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:have to agree. if this is what PRL negotiated then maybe the TV rights should revert to a 9 year old child with basic common sense?!?!?!

+1

itsallabouttheincentives wrote: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:have to agree. if this is what PRL negotiated then maybe the TV rights should revert to a 9 year old child with basic common sense?!?!?!

+1

 love you Bruce  

Poorfour wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:if this is true two things will happen
E is no Den sacked and sued
no european competition next year and all around carnage

Also, someone at the PRL will be sacked for agreeing a ludicrously risky contract that leaves no room for manoeuvre. If the PRL have signed a contract like that then they would have committed to getting everything going their way at a ridiculously early stage of proceedings - not long after they served notice. Given that at this point they had just given up trying to negotiate with the other ERC members, that's a stupidly ballsy strategy.

But it's equally stupid for BT to structure a contract that way. BT are getting into broadcasting to protect their huge phone and broadband revenues, and they need distinctive content. They definitely want a strong European cup, but structuring a contract that would seriously damage the PRL clubs if the European cup doesn't come off is as dangerous for BT as it is for the PRL.

Think about it for a minute. If there's no European league, under this supposed contract, the PRL will lose so much money it might go under. If that happens, BT are left with nothing. In fact, worse than that, they're left in a position where no-one will be prepared to deal with them because of what happened to the PRL.

It's in BT's interest to secure the AP as their rugby bedrock, and then play a longer game over Europe.

So we're left with 3 options:
- 2 major commercial organisations have structured a contract that actually works for neither of them
- It's a genuine story, but the message has been garbled or misinterpreted along the way. Possible. It's a very brief summary of what is undoubtedly a complex contract
- It's a windup.

I call the latter. It's a good windup, but a windup nonetheless.

I agree

The Great Aukster wrote:If the BT deal was remotely close to those terms, the PRL would be determined to smash the current ERC, not negotiate on anything, and keep the details of any deals secret... hang on...

Which is a guaranteed way to get a result and exactly the way to proceed when you are betting your whole business on it. Not.

It's just not plausible that two organisations with everything to lose would make a bet like that.

It's a wind-up, but quite funny  

'E is no Den'... Maybe there's a clue in the name?

Poorfour - but that is exactly what they have done. They completely misread the reactions of the others. and have backed themselves into a corner. as soon as the PRL signed the BT deal they could not compromise at all.

their attempts to divide and conquer look more and more desperate.

Poorfour wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:if this is true two things will happen
E is no Den sacked and sued
no european competition next year and all around carnage

Also, someone at the PRL will be sacked for agreeing a ludicrously risky contract that leaves no room for manoeuvre. If the PRL have signed a contract like that then they would have committed to getting everything going their way at a ridiculously early stage of proceedings - not long after they served notice. Given that at this point they had just given up trying to negotiate with the other ERC members, that's a stupidly ballsy strategy.

But it's equally stupid for BT to structure a contract that way. BT are getting into broadcasting to protect their huge phone and broadband revenues, and they need distinctive content. They definitely want a strong European cup, but structuring a contract that would seriously damage the PRL clubs if the European cup doesn't come off is as dangerous for BT as it is for the PRL.

Think about it for a minute. If there's no European league, under this supposed contract, the PRL will lose so much money it might go under. If that happens, BT are left with nothing. In fact, worse than that, they're left in a position where no-one will be prepared to deal with them because of what happened to the PRL.

It's in BT's interest to secure the AP as their rugby bedrock, and then play a longer game over Europe.

So we're left with 3 options:
- 2 major commercial organisations have structured a contract that actually works for neither of them
- It's a genuine story, but the message has been garbled or misinterpreted along the way. Possible. It's a very brief summary of what is undoubtedly a complex contract
- It's a windup.

I call the latter. It's a good windup, but a windup nonetheless.

Faint heart never won fair woman.
Surely the hyper professional PRL would back themselves to play hardball well enough that the weak Unions would cave in under the threat of losing their golden goose?
As for BT is it not actually in their interests that they get the domestic rugby rights for a song? Why would they want to pay big money for diminishing returns regarding broadband subscribers? They have already got the English rugby market and if the bold European strategy came off they would have an expensive but genuinely world class competition, so worth a punt for sheer credibility.