New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

First topic message reminder :

I have heard it is:

6 French
6 English
7 Pro12 (1 guaranteed from each country, 3 on league position)
1 play-off (7th English and 7th French team)

Trying to find out is correct as we speak

Standulstermen wrote:It's a fair point broadland but if the unions put the foot down there is no contest. PRL have now refused a deal which is a massive compromise from the unions (and not from the clubs), and have not engaged in any mediation process. If you take that to the courts you are not doing so from a position of strength I don't think.

Add to the fact that no court is going to want to overrule any sports governing body and the PRL could be in a tricky enough spot. I won't suggest they are in a corner because they still hold the two biggest markets in the deal. As with the entirety of this debate, it will ultimately come down to where the rfu/FFR draw the line

happens all the time. what are you on. precedents abound, FIFA wrt broadcasting rights, FIFA wrt bosman for starters. i have read so much wishful thinking here this evening from entirely one side of the debate. fantasies about legal situations, penalties for missold tv rights, lack of support from respective unions, erc still in the frame, etc, etc. it's like watching the warmup routine for some kind of mass delusion or hypnosis. jeez.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

stub wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

I wouldn't be so sure.  The PRL have backed themselves into a corner with this "Join our new tournament or nothing approach."  They could have had all their demands in the HC, but this deal with BT has made negotiation impossible.  Evidenced by the fact that when the Celts agree to a reduction of 10 teams to 7 its still not enough.  

The French Union have approved the above settlement, as have the IRFU on behalf of the Irish provinces.  The PRL could find that they have sold BT a second Anglo-Welsh cup.

Have the French Union approved something that the RFU haven't? Genuine question. (In the context of this post)

From what I can surmise the RFU have backed the above proposals as well.  To be honest I'm starting to think that McCafferty has really dug himself a hole.  He has sold BT the rights to a competition that may well never exist.  If he can't pull off the Rugby Champions Cup now he could find himself in quite a bit of trouble.

Just to clarify...

Representatives from the Rugby Football Union, French Rugby Federation, Scottish Rugby Union, Welsh Rugby Union, Irish Rugby Union and Italian Rugby Federation were all present in Dublin.

That means all Unions have agreed to the new proposals for the Heineken Cup.  McCafferty is still insisting that there will be no HC, there will be the RCC instead.  But without a single union backing it how will this materialize?  I have no doubt that the IRB will also side with the Unions given that they are a united front.  

I did mention to someone (Fly I think) on another tedious thread that Ian Ritchie was an astute cookie. He's got one over McGufferty if the proposed agreement goes through.

I know some of you don't like it, but given the alternative, something is better than nothing.

As you might guess, I'm no fan of McGufferty (sp?).

Munch,
Since the negotiations are finally happening, and happening behind closed doors, we don't know what is really on the table and what is not.  The good news is the sides will meet again within 10 days and hopefully a framework of a real agreement will be finalised at that time.  More good news is it seems the lack of emotional intelligence displayed by all sides seems to be fading against the real pressure of needing to get a deal done.  What a surprise there:  Money talks and BS walks.

Clearly the biggest point remaining is governance.  Since some aspects of governance are proposed to be handed off to the 6 Nations, this leaves the administration of revenue, scheduling of matches, handling of referees, maximising averts and sponsorship, distribution of funds (that's always done with outside monitoring in major sport), and procedures for tabling a grievance.  What else is a major governance concern?  

That is all wrapped up with the TV contracts. The final stumbling block and we need ensure the contracts protect the Celtic and Italian teams from any revenue reduction.

I can't see the PRL and LNR looking for control over everything. Who would really want it? If they are indeed satisfied with what seems agreed now, then hopefully no one gets something caught up in the zipper on their pants and they bring this home. A few of the more rabid and extremist types here on 606v2 from all sides might not have a problem with that...............

Doc, only problem with all that is the point that negotiations have not taken place.  A meeting has taken place between Unions.  The clubs, including the Welsh body, didn't turn up - didn't negotiate...have said in advance that nothing said at the meeting has significance to them

The only response from PRL post the meeting is that it's not enough.

What more do they want?
...they have a proposal that certainly disempowers the Pro12 as a European League (How's that for nobbling a marketing competitor!) and they're not finished.  They want more.  ALL their demands ain't in yet.

I'm sure I'll say more tomorrow about what I think about that guff.

But there you go.  It's not exactly a sign of satisfaction, nor a sign of anything yet 'agreed'.

quinsforever wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:It's a fair point broadland but if the unions put the foot down there is no contest. PRL have now refused a deal which is a massive compromise from the unions (and not from the clubs), and have not engaged in any mediation process. If you take that to the courts you are not doing so from a position of strength I don't think.

Add to the fact that no court is going to want to overrule any sports governing body and the PRL could be in a tricky enough spot. I won't suggest they are in a corner because they still hold the two biggest markets in the deal. As with the entirety of this debate, it will ultimately come down to where the rfu/FFR draw the line

almost. if the unions put the foot down there will be no contest at all. and the celtic unions will lose out most of all. a bad deal is better than no deal at all.

I know it's late for you, quins, but ..... really?  

doc - well said.

Actually not late for me munch. I work US hours.

Yes really. And it's only a bad deal compared to the current one. It's more than fair in my eyes.

WRU released a statement this evening too. I haven't long read it. They touched upon the revenues. Apologies if it's been done.

Distribution of Revenues

There is also consensus that distributable revenues generated through the competitions would be divided one third, one third, one third per league with the stipulation that monies to be received by the Pro12 countries would not be less than the current levels.

Next Steps

At our suggestion, all parties agreed to meet with us again on Friday, 1 November 2013 to discuss the implementation of these principles together with important issues related to operations and governance.

Meeting attendees:

Graeme Mew (Mediator), Stephen Drymer (Mediator), Ian Ritchie (RFU), Rob Andrew (RFU), Bill Beaumont (RFU), Pierre Camou (FFR), Michel Palmié (FFR), Olivier Keraudren (FFR), Philip Browne (IRFU), Peter Boyle (IRFU), Fabrizio Gaetaniello (FIR), Andrea Rinaldo (FIR), Nino Sacca (FIR), Mark Dodson (SRU), Ian McLauchlan (SRU), Roger Lewis (WRU), Jean-Pierre Lux (ERC), Derek McGrath (ERC).

(FFR: Federation Francaise de Rugby; FIR: Federazione Italiana Rugby; IRFU: Irish Rugby Football Union; LNR: Ligue Nationale de Rugby; RFU: Rugby Football Union; SRU: Scottish Rugby Union; WRU: Welsh Rugby Union; ERC: European Rugby Cup)

Harrow, thanks.

Fly,
I agree there was no face to face between the parties.  I suspect the RFU are doing the right thing here (not something they are usually famous for) and acting as go-between.  If I am right, then that is Ian Ritchie's doing.  He is not one of the old boy blazer types.  I the know PRL statement does not give us enough, but maybe that is a good thing?  Negotiating through the media hasn't gotten us very far?  I would have preferred to hear nothing rather than a slightly pissy comfimation that negotiations are in progress, but not done.  

I am not sure what you mean by disempowering the Celtic League/Unions.  I am not sure what power the PRL could possibly want which could do anything.  Accounting and disbursement of funds is overseen by outside consultants, and adverts and sponsorship is usually tournament wide.  Everything else should be negotiated into the agreement, or is proposed to be foisted on the 6 Nations, which is run by...........the unions.  
If the PRL want to backtrack on those fundamentals I would be surprised and very disappointed.  

I suppose the 10 day moratorium is so everyone can review where they stand and plan any next steps.  The RFU will need to debrief the PRL.  As a final thought, I will bet you a good pint of ale some of the negotiations are how to present the final agreement to the public so it appears no one loses face or everyone loses a little face equally.  In other words spin it so it appears no one lost the fight.

doctor_grey wrote:Munch,
Since the negotiations are finally happening, and happening behind closed doors, we don't know what is really on the table and what is not.  The good news is the sides will meet again within 10 days and hopefully a framework of a real agreement will be finalised at that time.  More good news is it seems the lack of emotional intelligence displayed by all sides seems to be fading against the real pressure of needing to get a deal done.  What a surprise there:  Money talks and BS walks.

Clearly the biggest point remaining is governance.  Since some aspects of governance are proposed to be handed off to the 6 Nations, this leaves the administration of revenue, scheduling of matches, handling of referees, maximising averts and sponsorship, distribution of funds (that's always done with outside monitoring in major sport), and procedures for tabling a grievance.  What else is a major governance concern?  

That is all wrapped up with the TV contracts.  The final stumbling block and we need ensure the contracts protect the Celtic and Italian teams from any revenue reduction.

I can't see the PRL and LNR looking for control over everything.  Who would really want it?  If they are indeed satisfied with what seems agreed now, then hopefully no one gets something caught up in the zipper on their pants and they bring this home.  A few of the more rabid and extremist types here on 606v2 from all sides might not have a problem with that...............

Hi, doc.

The only real positive I can see at this point is that this nasty dispute is in the end game, and hopefully concluded within the next couple of weeks. That's not to say that no other positives will come out of this. I have hope.
Trust is a very real concern for many when considering PRL/LNR having a very strong influence in any new Euro competition, including one that is regulated by the Unions. The reasons are obvious when considering that with the little power the PRL had in the HEC they have managed to cause so much disruption, and its very likely destruction. So easy to pull something down. Not so easy to build something up, and sadly many years dedicated labour can be destroyed very quickly by an act of recklessness.
Yes, the clubs may do a sterling job in the governance of any new competition, but the real concern is in what direction will European rugby be headed under their influence? I believe this concern lies at the heart of debate amongst fans.
Say the 6 Nations have oversight of the new tournament; what does that actually mean in terms of imposing controlling measures on the clubs within if needs be? We have already witnessed the reaction of the clubs to Union control within the HEC, and PRL themselves have clearly stated that they do not want to be under Union control as far as European competition is concerned.
I'm not usually a pessimist, but some of the actions of PRL/LNR have instilled in me serious doubts about their ability to run such a competition successfully over a prolonged period of time, and for the good of rugby union.
I'm interested in the fine detail, and it might just be that I can be enthusiastic about the success of a new competition once the details are published, although I will have to find something else to grumble about

quinsforever wrote:Actually not late for me munch. I work US hours.

Yes really. And it's only a bad deal compared to the current one. It's more than fair in my eyes.

Dollar hours better than Sterling hours?

A bad deal can never be good. I will leave you to work that out. Goodnight  

quinsforever wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:It's a fair point broadland but if the unions put the foot down there is no contest. PRL have now refused a deal which is a massive compromise from the unions (and not from the clubs), and have not engaged in any mediation process. If you take that to the courts you are not doing so from a position of strength I don't think.

Add to the fact that no court is going to want to overrule any sports governing body and the PRL could be in a tricky enough spot. I won't suggest they are in a corner because they still hold the two biggest markets in the deal. As with the entirety of this debate, it will ultimately come down to where the rfu/FFR draw the line

happens all the time. what are you on. precedents abound, FIFA wrt broadcasting rights, FIFA wrt bosman for starters. i have read so much wishful thinking here this evening from entirely one side of the debate. fantasies about legal situations, penalties for missold tv rights, lack of support from respective unions, erc still in the frame, etc, etc. it's like watching the warmup routine for some kind of mass delusion or hypnosis. jeez.

Quins you are talking absolute nonsense. No court can tell the IRB they have to sanction a tournament. IRB cannot of course stop PRL/LNR if they wish to go ahead without union support but equally the PRL/LNR cannot expect the IRB to sanction their comp without union approval. Thus they wouldn't be playing rugby union. Also just because the PRL and LNR clubs do not compete does not mean there is no contest. It means the PRL and LNR will not take part if their resolve holds.

Munch, we will all find something to grumble about!  That's a guarantee.

I think the hardest part of the negotiations is working into the agreement every little and detailed stipulation which protects everyone from each other.  I believe it is critical because it is clear there is a lack of trust.  In my opinion that stems from the very beginning of the negotiations when the PRL and LNR wanted change on their own terms, and the ERC sides showing no inclination to talk about anything.  Another example of the ill-fated unstoppable force and the immovable object.  This is obviously simplistic, but to me it clearly shows both sides are equally culpable.  And, the emotive extremists on both sides have made this significantly worse than it ever should have been, and frankly, will continue to do so.  

I think it is not so difficult to understand why the PRL and LHR do not want to be under control of the unions and vise-versa.  Pro Rugby in England and France are completely different business models than in Scotland, Ireland, and Italy.  Wales is somewhat different than either.  Playing together under completely equal rules is illogical for radically different business models such as these, and frankly, impossible.  From ownership to structure, to player control, on and on.  Completely different.  Merging them is stressful and each side should have some advantage unique to them (in my opinion) as compensation.  The English and French clubs don't want someone else coming in and telling them what to do with their own businesses, whether the RFU/FFR or a union from another Rugby nation. And the Rabo Unions don't want 12 English and 14 French businesses dictating to them.  I am not saying this makes any of them more 'right' than anyone else, but this is where a major stress point is.  

For the first time, there does seem o be a faint feeling the end game is approaching.  Hoping we are right.  

As a final point for the optimistic:  The peaceful, quiet, and shy Richard Cockerill has stated he wants to see European Club Rugby next year.  Would you want to be one of the blazers who gets to tell Cockers to his face that Euro Rugby is cancelled?  
Situation fixed.

Not usually up at this hour, but business meetings dictate...

One topic that informs this thread that hasn't been picked up is ownership of rugby's biggest asset, the players.

A lot of folk appear to assume that the three biggest NH Unions will somehow force this latest missive through or their clubs/regions will be isolated. This will never happen - both the IRB and the Unions will never go to court on this as they would lose and you get a situation where each say they will sanction if the other does first.

I have always felt that LNR & PRL would concede on financials because they can and the Unions would concede on structure because they can.

Ultimately we still have different business models making uneasy bedfellows and that is not going to change, although bottom up models with diversified risk usually win in the end.

This sounds like nonsense- why is year 1 different to year 2 and beyond?

why do the french and english clubs get home advantage?

Why complicate it like this. 

We need to get this fair and there is no point having one different rule chance in year one! that is ridiculous- i can't see any benefit of that.

I can understand why the prl and lnr may want an edge in regards to the play off tourney- due to the Pro12 having one extra place.

BUt this is madness.

MAke it fair..

top 6 get in from all leagues,

then 7-9 rabbo teams get in the play off tourney(this ensures every union has a second chance of getting in and we aren't forced into the un meteoritic rabbo allocation process as it stands, and then we also add the next two from england and france), plus the winner of the secondary tournament(if that team has already qualified then we put in the next best placed team from that tourny)

ok thats 8 teams fighting out for two spots- a league format would surely incorporate too many games, so we have a small knockout tourney.

standard cup format- 3 games winner qualifies as top qualifier and gets the 19th spot.

the two semi final teams go into a 3rd 4th place play off, the winner of this then plays the loser of the final..

so max of 4 extra games each and ALL GAMES MUST BE NEUTRAL!

Mate,
I agree, that extra place is silly.  JUst award it to the Celtic League and be done with it.  I don't like the teams having an extra match to decide the spot.  But, I can see how a play-in game could have some good attention drawn to it, in the stadium and on tv.  If we must have it, let's keep that simple too.   Only one match, no home and away, just rotate the home team between the leagues each year.  If a team loses because they travelled, then so be it.  

These guys could over-complicate drinking a glass of water.

You are right mysti but the 7th place is to guarantee that every year the Rabo winners make it in. With 6 qualifiers the potential is there that the team that finishes 4th could potentially become champions but also miss out on qualification.

1 from each nation is necessary to make any competition truly European

6+6+8 was the far easier solution

If this happens(7,6,6) the only major change I want is a neutral venue for the play off. I dont like a switched up home and away tbh as that doesn't really seem fair on individual teams(leagues yes- teams that actually play- no)

But it does tell that this isn't really to strengthen the english or french chances but more to do with match revenue!!

More than likely mysti. Asbo I agree but I sense that wasn't an option

Governance has to protect all parties being ignore to an extent.

I would suggest 6 votes for the English and French and 2 votes for the rest.
20 votes total.

All decisions have to gain a majority of votes and at least 1 vote from a majority of countries. That way the French and English cannot push anything through without 2 other Nations agreeing. That way the Pro12 cannot push anything through with having at least 3 votes from France and England.

How the French, English and Welsh split their votes (between clubs and Unions) is up to them.

What we simply cannot have is:
6 English Club votes
6 French club votes
6 Pro12 votes (presuambly 2 Welsh and Irish and 1 Scottish and Italian)
with a simply majority deciding.

If that is what McCafferty and his cohorts want there will be no European rugby

doctor_grey wrote:
These guys could over-complicate drinking a glass of water.

 
Indeed.  
 
Plus, in my mind, the whole thing is still fundamentally flawed as there is still too much rugby attempting to be top tier.  You can't have all your best players playing international rugby (~11/12 games a season), european rugby (6-9 games) and domestic (22-24 games).  That's anywhere between 39 and 45 games.  Given the increasing physical demands of the game in recent years, how many can someone realistically play without excessively increasing the injury and burn out risk? I think England players are currently restricted to 32, but even at that some are looking over cooked. You could also argue it varies depending on position, 32 may be fine for a wing but will take more of a toll on a front row players.
 
The danger now is that although the prestige lies in the European Cup, the priority for all teams will be their leagues - because they stand to lose a lot more if they don't perform well there.  We've seen it often enough with the French teams, and also to a lesser extent with the English squads already.
 
The only potential way round that that I can see is if we have a rule in the AP (and others) that you have to select a certain number of academy players in each match day squad.  That way you formally reduce the status of the domestic rugby and can force rotation and development without teams having worrying about setting themselves up for failure (and without teams trying to buy in enough top players to effectively be able to choose between two 'joint first choice' sides).  I'd be happy with that, but suspect many would complain about the league being devalued.

"I think England players are currently restricted to 32"


"and can force rotation and development "


If the first in enforced then you have to go with the second or you can't field a team!!- so we dont necessarily need to force academy players playing each game

I would reduce the games to 30, and that would force the rotation even more..

I take your point mystiroakey. However, what I was getting at is that teams may choose to do the resting and rotating during the European Cup - which prevents it being an elite tournament, irrespective of how well they need to do to get in. The other danger is that teams try and buy super squads, with an international (or near enough) standard player as back up in every position. For me that just makes it harder for academy players to get the game time they need to develop, and also leads to wage inflation and more expensive squads.

SecretFly wrote:If there is a long drawn out split in European Rugby Union that is based on principles not compromised then so be it.  Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven and all that.

If PRL have a signed and sealed Deal for European Rugby that will force them now to pay compensation if that deal is scapped, then that was bad business to begin with.  

If they were certain they'd quickly intimidate the Unions and are now seeing something much more solid hitting them, then again that was naive of them.

Don't sign a deal you haven't got.  Or go ahead with the Franglo competition and wait and see what the IRBs response will be.  

Whatever the outcome, the PRL know they won't get as much from BT for a two nation Cup competition - BT wanted a HEC competition... advertising and money making potential throughout all top rugby Union nations not just two.

So, Fly, are you finally admitting that the PRL are on the side of the angels? [Ducks for cover]

I don't think that's very nice, using ducks for cover. Bill Oddie would be livid if he found out.

Poorfour wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If there is a long drawn out split in European Rugby Union that is based on principles not compromised then so be it.  Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven and all that.

If PRL have a signed and sealed Deal for European Rugby that will force them now to pay compensation if that deal is scapped, then that was bad business to begin with.  

If they were certain they'd quickly intimidate the Unions and are now seeing something much more solid hitting them, then again that was naive of them.

Don't sign a deal you haven't got.  Or go ahead with the Franglo competition and wait and see what the IRBs response will be.  

Whatever the outcome, the PRL know they won't get as much from BT for a two nation Cup competition - BT wanted a HEC competition... advertising and money making potential throughout all top rugby Union nations not just two.

So, Fly, are you finally admitting that the PRL are on the side of the angels? [Ducks for cover]

Absolutely Poorfour, they're perfect angels.  
Family viewing, Charles Ingelsy, popcorn-goodie-two-shoes-class, soft inoffensive jokes, bland complexions, wishy-washy, sacaren sweet smiles.

Who wants any of that???  No actor wants to play an bloomin' angel.  He wants to be a locked and loaded, black-hearted, utility-belt wearing bat eared warrior of the night!

That's us - the Pro12.  The Dastardly Devils of Doom!    Yeah, that suits my temperament much better, that fits like a glove

mystiroakey wrote:

I can understand why the prl and lnr may want an edge in regards to the play off tourney- due to the Pro12 having one extra place.

But either the French of English will get one extra place too. And you're forgetting the Pro12 consists of 4 playing countries, so it shoud be a 6,6,8 split. Looks as if the Union's have compromised and agreed to some changes yet the PRL/LNR still want more. The home play-off advantage for the English and French is complete man sausage-swallow.

Have the french signed a contract with BT too? What's wrong with them?

So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

VinceWLB wrote:Have the french signed a contract with BT too? What's wrong with them?

I don't know. Last time I heard they were falling in with their German friends and complaining about the US spying on Furher Merkel.

The rest?.............. it's a blur.

The Saint wrote:So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

Crufts.

The Saint wrote:So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Traitors.... Two more for the scaffold here, executioner, there's a good man.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Oh yeah. Just unsure if the BT sponsorship creates any barriers for those wishing to create or a join a new leauge. This discussion has been difficult to follow in parts.

Its seems that with the Unions having agreed to the PRL/LNR's requirements with regard to qualification and revenue sharing ideas, the last stumbling blocks to a new agreement are:

Governance.
The Unions will want to dig their heels in on this, after conceding everything else. I'd imagine that a new body will be set up (ERC is finished, I think most people see that) involving more say for the clubs but not enough to have Majority Control.  

Commercial.
This is the one that will make or break the deal IMO. The clubs major problem with ERC was it's failure to capitalise on possible TV Income for the competitions (not helped by the fact that the Amlin is a pile of s**t at present).
Assuming the Unions get their way on Governance, they should probably set up a club/region driven sub committee to handle the commercial deals.

As for the TV moving foward. In terms of UK rights, PRL have a deal in place with BT for English games (but I dont see how they can claim jurisdiction over the away games!) and ERC have a deal with SKY for the whole lot.
As ERC probably wont exist anymore, the SKY deal will be off the table. Better to negotiate domestic and international rights for each country and throw them all into a central pot. That way, at least the French and English (with the bigger deals) are sharing something, and it should be enough to give everyone an increase over the ERC deal.

I believe Ulster have a BT sponsoring too.

The Saint wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Oh yeah. Just unsure if the BT sponsorship creates any barriers for those wishing to create or a join a new leauge. This discussion has been difficult to follow in parts.

BT don't sponsor the AVIVA premiership. They have a deal for the broadcast rights in the UK.

They are also the main shirt sponsors for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a secondary shirt sponsor (on the sleeve)  for Ulster, which is clever ploy, given SKYs current coverage of the HC and future coverage of the RABO.

andyi wrote:

The Saint wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Oh yeah. Just unsure if the BT sponsorship creates any barriers for those wishing to create or a join a new leauge. This discussion has been difficult to follow in parts.

BT don't sponsor the AVIVA premiership. They have a deal for the broadcast rights in the UK.

They are also the main shirt sponsors for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a secondary shirt sponsor (on the sleeve)  for Ulster, which is clever ploy, given SKYs current coverage of the HC and future coverage of the RABO.

Do SKY have any sleeve deals with any Premiership sides?  Speaking of which, I hardly know the sponsorship patches on Pro12 team shirts much less the ones on AP.  I'm sure the companies get value for money overall...but I'm certainly one guy who ain't watching the product placement on shirts.

9or wahtever it will be coThe Saint wrote:So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

They dont sponsor the premiership and they wont sponsor the RCC(or whatever it will be called). They hold the rights to broadcast some PL games and have offered a deal in place for the new RCC championship.. Which will probably end up becoming a split deal between BT and SKY as the ERC have signed a deal with sky already.

BT does sponsor many sporting teams however and have been since before they got in to TV broadcasting(august 2013). But that isn't strictly the point.

BT have been in TV for a while but this is its first venture into actual broadcasting.

andti -

"As ERC probably wont exist anymore, the SKY deal will be off the table. Better to negotiate domestic and international rights for each country and throw them all into a central pot. That way, at least the French and English (with the bigger deals) are sharing something, and it should be enough to give everyone an increase over the ERC deal."

100% agree. moreover, if each country raises the maximum amount of money if can for tv distribution we will finally know the true TV rights value in each country, rather than having this nonsense discussion about which country brings how much "value" to the competition. and when those numbers come out i think 1/3 of monies for each league will look like a good deal for the rabo league compared to how much they contribute to the communal TV rights pot.

SecretFly wrote:

andyi wrote:

The Saint wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So who are BT sponsoring altogether? There's the Premiership, and they also plan to sponsor the RCC, but I doubt that tournament will go ahead. Are there more?

Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Oh yeah. Just unsure if the BT sponsorship creates any barriers for those wishing to create or a join a new leauge. This discussion has been difficult to follow in parts.

BT don't sponsor the AVIVA premiership. They have a deal for the broadcast rights in the UK.

They are also the main shirt sponsors for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a secondary shirt sponsor (on the sleeve)  for Ulster, which is clever ploy, given SKYs current coverage of the HC and future coverage of the RABO.

Do SKY have any sleeve deals with any Premiership sides?  Speaking of which, I hardly know the sponsorship patches on Pro12 team shirts much less the ones on AP.  I'm sure the companies get value for money overall...but I'm certainly one guy who ain't watching the product placement on shirts.

SKY don't but they are well known and don't need the exposure. BT sport is pretty new and trying to push the brand and given their AP deal, it makes sense to advertise on some RABO teams shirts I guess.

quinsforever wrote:andti -

"As ERC probably wont exist anymore, the SKY deal will be off the table. Better to negotiate domestic and international rights for each country and throw them all into a central pot. That way, at least the French and English (with the bigger deals) are sharing something, and it should be enough to give everyone an increase over the ERC deal."

100% agree. moreover, if each country raises the maximum amount of money if can for tv distribution we will finally know the true TV rights value in each country, rather than having this nonsense discussion about which country brings how much "value" to the competition. and when those numbers come out i think 1/3 of monies for each league will look like a good deal for the rabo league compared to how much they contribute to the communal TV rights pot.

Yeah. It will be in effect a subsidy, which is fair enough, if we all agree that part of any competitions remit is to support Scottish and Italian rugby financially.

If you compare it to the UEFA champions League. UEFA do all the TV deals centrally but sell it to individual countries with many having split FTA/PayTV deals like the UK. All that money goes in to the central coffers, and as well as prize money, clubs get TV money but it is scaled dependent on the size of the individual countries TV market.

BT have a deal covering all the PRL's home games - essentially every game in the AP and all home games (but only home games) in any future European tournament.

I imagine that the ERC's Sky deal covers much the same ground as the current one - i.e. all HEC and Amlin games. So there's an overlap.

What we don't know is a) what the various sides' "get outs" are. Does Sky have any comeback if the ERC doesn't have a tournament for it? b) How far BT and Sky are prepared to divide the spoils between them.

In practice, I think that getting a workable tournament depends on 3 things - whether BT and Sky can come to a compromise, agreeing a successor body to ERC (the 6 Nations has been suggested, which if its acceptable to the PRL/LNR sounds good to me) and whether a governance structure can be agreed that gives a balance of control (because you'll never get agreement without some kind of balance) and sorts out local issues (i.e. stops the FFR and WRU from overruling the LNR and RRW)

andyi wrote: BT don't sponsor the AVIVA premiership. They have a deal for the broadcast rights in the UK.England

FIXED

andyi wrote:Its seems that with the Unions having agreed to the PRL/LNR's requirements with regard to qualification and revenue sharing ideas, the last stumbling blocks to a new agreement are:

Governance.
The Unions will want to dig their heels in on this, after conceding everything else. I'd imagine that a new body will be set up (ERC is finished, I think most people see that) involving more say for the clubs but not enough to have Majority Control.  

Commercial.
This is the one that will make or break the deal IMO. The clubs major problem with ERC was it's failure to capitalise on possible TV Income for the competitions (not helped by the fact that the Amlin is a pile of s**t at present).
Assuming the Unions get their way on Governance, they should probably set up a club/region driven sub committee to handle the commercial deals.

As for the TV moving foward. In terms of UK rights, PRL have a deal in place with BT for English games (but I dont see how they can claim jurisdiction over the away games!) and ERC have a deal with SKY for the whole lot.
As ERC probably wont exist anymore, the SKY deal will be off the table. Better to negotiate domestic and international rights for each country and throw them all into a central pot. That way, at least the French and English (with the bigger deals) are sharing something, and it should be enough to give everyone an increase over the ERC deal.

A few facts for you to bear in mind when talking about TV viewing numbers.

Leicester v Northampton game - average no viewers - 179,000 (best this season for BT's rugby coverage).
Munster v Leinster game - 232,000 (RTE) average no. viewers.
Both broadcast the same day.

Secondly, there is an ERC Commercial Committee.
Dominic Gallagher is the PRL rep on it. Mick Dawson (Leinster CEO) is the Irish rep.

geoff998rugby wrote:

andyi wrote: BT don't sponsor the AVIVA premiership. They have a deal for the broadcast rights in the UK.England
 

FIXED

you what?

I am not 100% but i am pretty certain that BT sport is shown in the whole of the UK if you have it!!

geoff998rugby wrote:

andyi wrote: BT don't sponsor the AVIVA premiership. They have a deal for the broadcast rights in the UK.England
 

FIXED

I'm afraid not. They broadcast the Aviva premiership in England, Wales, Scotland and N.I

Don't mix it up with any potential deal for the RCC.

They also broadcast in Ireland as well!

Sin é wrote:

andyi wrote:Its seems that with the Unions having agreed to the PRL/LNR's requirements with regard to qualification and revenue sharing ideas, the last stumbling blocks to a new agreement are:

Governance.
The Unions will want to dig their heels in on this, after conceding everything else. I'd imagine that a new body will be set up (ERC is finished, I think most people see that) involving more say for the clubs but not enough to have Majority Control.  

Commercial.
This is the one that will make or break the deal IMO. The clubs major problem with ERC was it's failure to capitalise on possible TV Income for the competitions (not helped by the fact that the Amlin is a pile of s**t at present).
Assuming the Unions get their way on Governance, they should probably set up a club/region driven sub committee to handle the commercial deals.

As for the TV moving foward. In terms of UK rights, PRL have a deal in place with BT for English games (but I dont see how they can claim jurisdiction over the away games!) and ERC have a deal with SKY for the whole lot.
As ERC probably wont exist anymore, the SKY deal will be off the table. Better to negotiate domestic and international rights for each country and throw them all into a central pot. That way, at least the French and English (with the bigger deals) are sharing something, and it should be enough to give everyone an increase over the ERC deal.

A few facts for you to bear in mind when talking about TV viewing numbers.
Leicester v Northampton game - average no viewers - 179,000 (best this season for BT's rugby coverage).
Munster v Leinster game - average viewers - 232,000 (RTE) average no. viewers.
Both broadcast the same day.

Secondly, there is an ERC Commercial Committee. Dominic Gallagher is the PRL rep on it. Mick Dawson (Leinster CEO) is the Irish rep.

You are comparing a National FTA broadcaster with a PAYTV broadcaster with a far smaller reach.

The Audience figures are not what drive PAYTV. Subscriptions do.

The Premier league is worth billions to Sky and only gets 2m viewers (although plenty more in boozers) when FA cup games on ITV get far more. So why is the FA cup worth far less than the PL?