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

by geoff999rugby Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:29 pm

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

by Brendan Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:23 pm

If the money goes up by 1m per team so will the cap so expect a 10% rise in wages.

by quinsforever Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:23 pm

Brendan wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Brendan wrote:To be fair what is the point to only being able to see certain games on your tv and not see others because your country couldn't be bothered to buy rights.

What Irish TV will be rights to games not involving irish so we get a Rabo situation where the tournement doesn't become a product but more just your country.
bit confused by that brendan. what is your qn?
As far as i understand it all home games involving English clubs home games will be on BT.
If i wanted to watch as an example Sarries v Toulouse no irish tv company is going to show that.
As a result Irish viewers would only watch 4 games a week at most.

Also how do the WRU & SRU & IRFU(NI) sell their rights to the competition for their TV viewers as my understanding is the BT deal is for english teams for the UK so they have sold other unions rights

the world of broadcast tv rights is very flexible. their are no hard and fast rules, and many competitions structure the sale of rights differently. 6N vs ERC vs BT (whatever the deal is) v Champions League football vs Premiership (football) va Aviva Premiership.

the rights can be sold to SKY (ERC deal) who then on-sell to regional broadcasters where they do not have an ability to monetise
the rights can be sold into each country to show all of the games (Champions League football) and then the local broadcaster decides which games to screen
the rights can be attached to individual teams even (La Liga - spanish football) and their is a split done on a match by match basis depending who they play against

so there is nothing wrong per se with whatever the BT/PRL deal is. it needs to be looked at in totality, ie, compared to the previous deal, is more money being brought in in total, and then how is that money redistributed amongst all the participants.

by andyi Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:27 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
andyi wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:"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?"

That isn't necessarily due to the subscribers within the UK. Its more about the export.

The premier league is the most watched sporting league on the planet, it is broadcast to over 200 different countries with 80 different broadcasters. however the majority of the other nations that show PL games use and pay sky(as well as the Pl for the rights to show) for their broadcasts!

The PL is global... Its not just about domestic subscriptions or ratings. Sky make a fortune on it globally not just domestically

Sorry Mysti, you wrong. The premier league is massive and global but sells its own international deals. They are nothing do with SKY.

SKY pay £760m a year for the right to broadcast of matches in the UK only!

SKY and BT paid in £3.018 Billion in total for 3 years for the UK rights. The foreign rights will be worth almost as much again!!
Please re read what was said. You may learn something

My bad, sorry.

by quinsforever Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:29 pm

Brendan wrote:If the money goes up by 1m per team so will the cap so expect a 10% rise in wages.

what information do you base that on?

i would be highly confident that the salary cap will not move. that will make the AP on average profitable, and the RFU and PRL both want a healthy, competitive, commercially successful league. of course the richest 1 or 2 clubs would like higher salary caps because they can afford it, but its 1 club 1 vote so they wont be able to get it changed anytime soon.

by Irish Londoner Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:30 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Well, let's not brush it under the carpet for a second, SF, me old mucker, cos these are valid points - the breakaway pair supposedly want a level playing field - on the one side, that could include imposing a uniform salary cap, and on the other, it could seem the T14 sides demanding an extra place in the top level competition cos they have 14 sides vs 12. Thoughts?

Also aren't the French considering a move to a TOP16 - they aren't going to be happy with only 6 places in any European comp - if each league get half the places they should get 8. The French are using PRL as a stalking horse in this, PRL will do the nitty gritty to collapse ERC and get the RABO lined up in the new competition and will then go on their own sweet way, they are not going to reduce or freeze their salary cap when there's lots of TV money coming it shortly.
In a few years we could see the French turning on their erstwhile allies, demanding two extra cup spots and upping their salary cap to levels that even with BT money the PRL cannot match.

European rugby is going to end up the same as football, half a dozen "rich mans plaything" clubs winning everything domestic and European and the rest will be there to make up the numbers.

by R!skysports Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:33 pm

BT is giving away the Sports as a direct marketing ploy to encourage BT broad band take up - that is what they are really interested as that is what gets them the money - that is where their strengths are and that is where the network is

Sports is currently just a means to an end - however I hope it becomes more and they continue to develop it.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the free year comes up - will people jump ship?

I for one changed from Sky broadband to BT and dropped SKY sports on this deal - so for it worked for me (and as I hate professional football with a passion Sky had very little to offer me)

by quinsforever Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:34 pm

nonsense. wayne rooney could take a 70% paycut and he on his own wouldnt fit beneath the AP's £4.5m salary cap. do you honestly think a rugby club in a league where salary caps are voted on a 1 club 1 vote basis are going to be attractive to anyone with any real money?

if you dont understand what the PRL are doing with their salary caps, and targets for overall league profitability, then i can see you might not spot the obvious difference with football.

by Irish Londoner Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:38 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Brendan wrote:If the money goes up by 1m per team so will the cap so expect a 10% rise in wages.
what information do you base that on?

i would be highly confident that the salary cap will not move. that will make the AP on average profitable, and the RFU and PRL both want a healthy, competitive, commercially successful league. of course the richest 1 or 2 clubs would like higher salary caps because they can afford it, but its 1 club 1 vote so they wont be able to get it changed anytime soon.

Quins - that's what they said when the huge amount of Champions League/TV money started flowing in football - it will benefit the fans, ticket prices will come down, grounds will get improved, etc. in practice most of it flowed straight through the clubs and to the players and agents.

Once you've killed a king it's easy to kill another one - the top football clubs regularly hold UEFA to ransom by threatening a breakaway to a "Super League", in this country the Football League and FA bent over to let the clubs run the Premiership to the extent that the body that runs the game for the good of the nation at all levels is a passive spectator whenever the top clubs want to decide things and internatioal football is an inconvenience compared to the top level club game, I'm pretty sure that this or similar is the endgame scenario for the top people at PRL.

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:42 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Brendan wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Brendan wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Brendan wrote:To be fair what is the point to only being able to see certain games on your tv and not see others because your country couldn't be bothered to buy rights.

What Irish TV will be rights to games not involving irish so we get a Rabo situation where the tournement doesn't become a product but more just your country.
bit confused by that brendan. what is your qn?
As far as i understand it all home games involving English clubs home games will be on BT.
If i wanted to watch as an example Sarries v Toulouse no irish tv company is going to show that.
As a result Irish viewers would only watch 4 games a week at most.

Also how do the WRU & SRU & IRFU(NI) sell their rights to the competition for their TV viewers as my understanding is the BT deal is for english teams for the UK so they have sold other unions rights
sarries v toulouse is an english home game. Ireland have access to BT sport! its a UK and Irish network.
So part of the BT deal is sold in IRFU area without their permission. What if the IRFU want to sell all the irish teams games to Sky sports to be shown only in ireland
thats exactly the problem!

That's not a problem Mystir..that's a darn tootin' right. Wink

I hear BT (oops! PRL I of course mean) initally sold IRFU's rights for them... which was very friendly but I'd assume worthless in court.

by quinsforever Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:48 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Brendan wrote:If the money goes up by 1m per team so will the cap so expect a 10% rise in wages.
what information do you base that on?

i would be highly confident that the salary cap will not move. that will make the AP on average profitable, and the RFU and PRL both want a healthy, competitive, commercially successful league. of course the richest 1 or 2 clubs would like higher salary caps because they can afford it, but its 1 club 1 vote so they wont be able to get it changed anytime soon.
Quins - that's what they said when the huge amount of Champions League/TV money started flowing in football - it will benefit the fans, ticket prices will come down, grounds will get improved, etc. in practice most of it flowed straight through the clubs and to the players and agents.

Once you've killed a king it's easy to kill another one - the top football clubs regularly hold UEFA to ransom by threatening a breakaway to a "Super League", in this country the Football League and FA bent over to let the clubs run the Premiership to the extent that the body that runs the game for the good of the nation at all levels is a passive spectator whenever the top clubs want to decide things and internatioal football is an inconvenience compared to the top level club game, I'm pretty sure that this or similar is the endgame scenario for the top people at PRL.

champions league money in football is peanuts compared to the domestic leagues. and the money only goes to those teams taking part.

you have decided prl/lnr are not interested in overall profitability of their leagues, i have decided that their statements (re targeting profitability) and actions (salary cap, HC renegotiation, co-operation with RFU) convince me of the opposite. that they are interested in maximising the profitability of the overall league by modeling themselves on american professional sports associations and specifically NOT the football premier league.

by Big Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:53 pm

SecretFly wrote:
That's not a problem Mystir..that's a darn tootin' right.

I hear BT initally sold IRFU's rights for them... which was very friendly but I'd assume worthless in court.

It's not a right though. Conventionally you own the rights to the games that you host not broadcasts in your region. So, for example, when the Rugby Championship is on the IRFU do not get any of the money paid for broadcasting rights in Ireland. All the money (quite reasonably) goes to the SANZAR (or is that now SANZAAR) teams. Similarly when Ireland host say New Zealand in an autumn international all the money is theirs - so that both teams feel they are getting a fair deal they can decide to split it with New Zealand if they want to, or play reciprocal tests over there where NZ get all the money.

As far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop the IRFU from doing the same and selling the rights in all territories to games that they host in any future Euro competition.

by Poorfour Fri 25 Oct 2013, 2:54 pm

The reason levelling the playing field with the French salary cap hasn't been discussed much is that there's very little you can do about it.

Reducing a salary cap is very hard to do, because players' contracts are already in place. The best you could do would be to agree to reduce the cap in 3-4 years' time so that there would be time to restructure the squads as contracts came up for renewal. But that won't happen because what's the LNR's incentive for doing that? It might have been negotiable had there been meaningful negotiations when the LNR were still in the ERC, but not now.

So in practice, you might get them to agree to freeze the cap for a period of time to give everyone a chance to catch up. Which would be a bit meaningless unless everyone else had the wherewithal to raise their own caps. Could happen if they sort out the broadcasting rights and the tv money goes up, but right now there's enough money (for the PRL) to hit breakeven and (for the Rabo) to maintain current income but not enough to fund a big increase in salary cap.

Not much point debating what you can't change when there's plenty more to go after.

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:02 pm

Big wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
That's not a problem Mystir..that's a darn tootin' right.

I hear BT initally sold IRFU's rights for them... which was very friendly but I'd assume worthless in court.
It's not a right though. Conventionally you own the rights to the games that you host not broadcasts in your region. So, for example, when the Rugby Championship is on the IRFU do not get any of the money paid for broadcasting rights in Ireland. All the money (quite reasonably) goes to the SANZAR (or is that now SANZAAR) teams. Similarly when Ireland host say New Zealand in an autumn international all the money is theirs - so that both teams feel they are getting a fair deal they can decide to split it with New Zealand if they want to, or play reciprocal tests over there where NZ get all the money.

As far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop the IRFU from doing the same and selling the rights in all territories to games that they host in any future Euro competition.

Well Head of IRFU disagrees with you there Big - as do I.

In all Legal agreements on rights - there is negotiating agreements to be made on them.

Nothing gets sold that isn't owned unless the express consent is given by those who possess the inherent rights.

So, you can have an organisation like for example...the ERC... and yes, they can sell rights; as they've been given the right to sell 'rights' by rights holders. No such rights were given to PRL (by external rights holders - namely Unions) at the time they were declaring they had sold them.

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:03 pm

All the money (quite reasonably) goes to the SANZAR (or is that now SANZAAR) teams

do not say that near GE- he will hound you for days!!

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:06 pm

" No such rights were given to PRL at the time they were declaring they had sold them."

they were perfectly entitled to do what they did..

Why gave the notice and came out of the ERC, they then made a deal with BT. Yes other nations can say- No we cant go in in regards to the deal as it stands, but its not illegal!!

Its exactly the same principle as the PRL not getting involved in a new ERC deal with sky. They can play by there rules, but they dont have to.!!

by quinsforever Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:09 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Big wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
That's not a problem Mystir..that's a darn tootin' right.

I hear BT initally sold IRFU's rights for them... which was very friendly but I'd assume worthless in court.
It's not a right though. Conventionally you own the rights to the games that you host not broadcasts in your region. So, for example, when the Rugby Championship is on the IRFU do not get any of the money paid for broadcasting rights in Ireland. All the money (quite reasonably) goes to the SANZAR (or is that now SANZAAR) teams. Similarly when Ireland host say New Zealand in an autumn international all the money is theirs - so that both teams feel they are getting a fair deal they can decide to split it with New Zealand if they want to, or play reciprocal tests over there where NZ get all the money.

As far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop the IRFU from doing the same and selling the rights in all territories to games that they host in any future Euro competition.
Well Head of IRFU disagrees with you there Big - as do I.

In all Legal agreements on rights - there is negotiating agreements to be made on them.

Nothing gets sold that isn't owned unless the express consent is given by those who possess the inherent rights.

So, you can have an organisation like for example...the ERC... and yes, they can sell rights; as they've been given the right to sell 'rights' by rights holders. No such rights were given to PRL (by external rights holders - namely Unions) at the time they were declaring they had sold them.

This is a huge red herring. IF (and its a big if as we dont know diddly) BT's rights are for everyone's games, then so what? if no-one signs up to RCC then there is no issue. And if everyone does sign up to RCC, how is PRL setting up the commercial monetisation of TV rights any different from ERC doing it? as long as (and this is the one thing PRL have repeatedly said since day 1) all the money from the TV contract gets put into a communal pot and then redistributed along whatever lines are agreed by the participants.

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:12 pm

mystiroakey wrote:" No such rights were given to PRL at the time they were declaring they had sold them."

they were perfectly entitled to do what they did..

Why gave the notice and came out of the ERC, they then made a deal with BT. Yes other nations can say- No we cant go in in regards to the deal as it stands, but its not illegal!!

Its exactly the same principle as the PRL not getting involved in a new ERC deal with sky. They can play by there rules, but they dont have to.!!

I knew you'd interpret that first bit wrongly, therefore I had gone back and inserted a distinction in brackets...(before you replied)
They didn't have the rights to sell exclusive broadcasting rights to English sides in European contest against Irish sides on Irish soil. They claimed to have that right in the initial stages. I don't know what they're claiming now - too many demands in their pocket..they're getting confused themselves

by Irish Londoner Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:18 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Brendan wrote:If the money goes up by 1m per team so will the cap so expect a 10% rise in wages.
what information do you base that on?

i would be highly confident that the salary cap will not move. that will make the AP on average profitable, and the RFU and PRL both want a healthy, competitive, commercially successful league. of course the richest 1 or 2 clubs would like higher salary caps because they can afford it, but its 1 club 1 vote so they wont be able to get it changed anytime soon.
Quins - that's what they said when the huge amount of Champions League/TV money started flowing in football - it will benefit the fans, ticket prices will come down, grounds will get improved, etc. in practice most of it flowed straight through the clubs and to the players and agents.

Once you've killed a king it's easy to kill another one - the top football clubs regularly hold UEFA to ransom by threatening a breakaway to a "Super League", in this country the Football League and FA bent over to let the clubs run the Premiership to the extent that the body that runs the game for the good of the nation at all levels is a passive spectator whenever the top clubs want to decide things and internatioal football is an inconvenience compared to the top level club game, I'm pretty sure that this or similar is the endgame scenario for the top people at PRL.
champions league money in football is peanuts compared to the domestic leagues. and the money only goes to those teams taking part.

you have decided prl/lnr are not interested in overall profitability of their leagues, i have decided that their statements (re targeting profitability) and actions (salary cap, HC renegotiation, co-operation with RFU) convince me of the opposite. that they are interested in maximising the profitability of the overall league by modeling themselves on american professional sports associations and specifically NOT the football premier league.

Quins I hope your take is right for the sake of rugby in England, time will tell.

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:21 pm

quinsforever wrote:

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.

It's a red herring because you don't like it coming up. Neither did the IRFU head, Phillip Browne. You both agree there at least.

PRL... and their partner BT, were assuming the rights of an ERC body...before contacting those who would be part of that ERC type body. PRL were assuming the full rights to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of all potential Unions...before they spoke to any of the Unions.

If you can't understand the silly arrogance and impotency of that move then... c'est la vie, you never will, quins. It's always irrelevant when you don't like the sound of it... as the PRL said about the Pro12 Wink

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:29 pm

"Sell exclusive broadcasting rights to English sides in European contest against Irish sides on Irish soil."

Not sure because the original deal was only tagged as franglais , However the ERC certainly did that with sky. they had no right to say they had the right to sell exclusive broadcasting rights on games on english soil.

by Toohey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:33 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.
It's a red herring because you don't like it coming up. Neither did the IRFU head, Phillip Browne. You both agree there at least.

PRL... and their partner BT, were assuming the rights of an ERC body...before contacting those who would be part of that ERC type body. PRL were assuming the full rights to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of all potential Unions...before they spoke to any of the Unions.

If you can't understand the silly arrogance and impotency of that move then... c'est la vie, you never will, quins. It's always irrelevant when you don't like the sound of it... as the PRL said about the Pro12

The problem is...you have made all that up. I know some of you guys like to make something up in one post and then complain about how outrageous it is in the next but that doesn't make it the truth? BT purchased the rights to the Aviva teams home games in any future European competition. Nothing wrong with that. Move on.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:35 pm

quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Big wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
That's not a problem Mystir..that's a darn tootin' right.

I hear BT initally sold IRFU's rights for them... which was very friendly but I'd assume worthless in court.
It's not a right though. Conventionally you own the rights to the games that you host not broadcasts in your region. So, for example, when the Rugby Championship is on the IRFU do not get any of the money paid for broadcasting rights in Ireland. All the money (quite reasonably) goes to the SANZAR (or is that now SANZAAR) teams. Similarly when Ireland host say New Zealand in an autumn international all the money is theirs - so that both teams feel they are getting a fair deal they can decide to split it with New Zealand if they want to, or play reciprocal tests over there where NZ get all the money.

As far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop the IRFU from doing the same and selling the rights in all territories to games that they host in any future Euro competition.
Well Head of IRFU disagrees with you there Big - as do I.

In all Legal agreements on rights - there is negotiating agreements to be made on them.

Nothing gets sold that isn't owned unless the express consent is given by those who possess the inherent rights.

So, you can have an organisation like for example...the ERC... and yes, they can sell rights; as they've been given the right to sell 'rights' by rights holders. No such rights were given to PRL (by external rights holders - namely Unions) at the time they were declaring they had sold them.
This is a huge red herring. IF (and its a big if as we dont know diddly) BT's rights are for everyone's games, then so what? if no-one signs up to RCC then there is no issue. And if everyone does sign up to RCC, how is PRL setting up the commercial monetisation of TV rights any different from ERC doing it? as long as (and this is the one thing PRL have repeatedly said since day 1) all the money from the TV contract gets put into a communal pot and then redistributed along whatever lines are agreed by the participants.

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.

quinsforever, it is still an IF at this stage until the full details are known, but WHAT A FEICIN CHEEK?!?! McTw@fferty and co take the absolute biscuit

by quinsforever Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:40 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Big wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
That's not a problem Mystir..that's a darn tootin' right.

I hear BT initally sold IRFU's rights for them... which was very friendly but I'd assume worthless in court.
It's not a right though. Conventionally you own the rights to the games that you host not broadcasts in your region. So, for example, when the Rugby Championship is on the IRFU do not get any of the money paid for broadcasting rights in Ireland. All the money (quite reasonably) goes to the SANZAR (or is that now SANZAAR) teams. Similarly when Ireland host say New Zealand in an autumn international all the money is theirs - so that both teams feel they are getting a fair deal they can decide to split it with New Zealand if they want to, or play reciprocal tests over there where NZ get all the money.

As far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop the IRFU from doing the same and selling the rights in all territories to games that they host in any future Euro competition.
Well Head of IRFU disagrees with you there Big - as do I.

In all Legal agreements on rights - there is negotiating agreements to be made on them.

Nothing gets sold that isn't owned unless the express consent is given by those who possess the inherent rights.

So, you can have an organisation like for example...the ERC... and yes, they can sell rights; as they've been given the right to sell 'rights' by rights holders. No such rights were given to PRL (by external rights holders - namely Unions) at the time they were declaring they had sold them.
This is a huge red herring. IF (and its a big if as we dont know diddly) BT's rights are for everyone's games, then so what? if no-one signs up to RCC then there is no issue. And if everyone does sign up to RCC, how is PRL setting up the commercial monetisation of TV rights any different from ERC doing it? as long as (and this is the one thing PRL have repeatedly said since day 1) all the money from the TV contract gets put into a communal pot and then redistributed along whatever lines are agreed by the participants.

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.
quinsforever, it is still an IF at this stage until the full details are known, but WHAT A FEICIN CHEEK?!?! McTw@fferty and co take the absolute biscuit

yes cheeky, arrogant, whatever. but honestly, who cares? they aren't selling something and running off with the money FFS. they are selling something and putting all the money into a communal pot. quite frankly i dont care what they sold to BT - it's 50% more money so they have done a far better job than ERC.

and honestly, do you think anyone will not sign up to it because they weren't consulted when PRL and BT negotiated their deal? union blazers get paid very well to be able to put their egos aside and make sensible decisions. cheek just doesnt come into on when making this kind of decision.

by Portnoy's Complaint Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:42 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Brendan wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Brendan wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Brendan wrote:To be fair what is the point to only being able to see certain games on your tv and not see others because your country couldn't be bothered to buy rights.

What Irish TV will be rights to games not involving irish so we get a Rabo situation where the tournement doesn't become a product but more just your country.
bit confused by that brendan. what is your qn?
As far as i understand it all home games involving English clubs home games will be on BT.
If i wanted to watch as an example Sarries v Toulouse no irish tv company is going to show that.
As a result Irish viewers would only watch 4 games a week at most.

Also how do the WRU & SRU & IRFU(NI) sell their rights to the competition for their TV viewers as my understanding is the BT deal is for english teams for the UK so they have sold other unions rights
sarries v toulouse is an english home game. Ireland have access to BT sport! its a UK and Irish network.
So part of the BT deal is sold in IRFU area without their permission. What if the IRFU want to sell all the irish teams games to Sky sports to be shown only in ireland
thats the problem!

Is this true for the ROI? As I understand it, broadcasts are owned by the territories of the hosting nation. I would assume that the BTS signal decryption would canot have been passed across the border.

I know that BBC FTA aerial signals are soaked up by the Irish in their masses, but not copper/fibre ones, surely?
Or am I mistaken - as this it would seem to me to be an illegal act in a foreign administration.

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:45 pm

Engine#4 wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Full statement

The English and French clubs would have home advantage in the play-offs against the Pro12 clubs.

Afraid of a visit to fortresses like the Galway Sportsground are we? So much for meritocracy

Yet another money grab to ensure the PRL & LNR clubs get the gate receipts for this fixture. If they wanted to make a proper deal out of this 'wild card' spot, they could hold them at one of the national stadia as a double header (think Dragons v Wasps & Leinster v Biarritz, just picking random teams). You can switch the teams around but potentially 4 different nations teams in a back to back double header would be great craic altogether (think of the banter).

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:45 pm

quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Big wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
That's not a problem Mystir..that's a darn tootin' right.

I hear BT initally sold IRFU's rights for them... which was very friendly but I'd assume worthless in court.
It's not a right though. Conventionally you own the rights to the games that you host not broadcasts in your region. So, for example, when the Rugby Championship is on the IRFU do not get any of the money paid for broadcasting rights in Ireland. All the money (quite reasonably) goes to the SANZAR (or is that now SANZAAR) teams. Similarly when Ireland host say New Zealand in an autumn international all the money is theirs - so that both teams feel they are getting a fair deal they can decide to split it with New Zealand if they want to, or play reciprocal tests over there where NZ get all the money.

As far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop the IRFU from doing the same and selling the rights in all territories to games that they host in any future Euro competition.
Well Head of IRFU disagrees with you there Big - as do I.

In all Legal agreements on rights - there is negotiating agreements to be made on them.

Nothing gets sold that isn't owned unless the express consent is given by those who possess the inherent rights.

So, you can have an organisation like for example...the ERC... and yes, they can sell rights; as they've been given the right to sell 'rights' by rights holders. No such rights were given to PRL (by external rights holders - namely Unions) at the time they were declaring they had sold them.
This is a huge red herring. IF (and its a big if as we dont know diddly) BT's rights are for everyone's games, then so what? if no-one signs up to RCC then there is no issue. And if everyone does sign up to RCC, how is PRL setting up the commercial monetisation of TV rights any different from ERC doing it? as long as (and this is the one thing PRL have repeatedly said since day 1) all the money from the TV contract gets put into a communal pot and then redistributed along whatever lines are agreed by the participants.

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.
quinsforever, it is still an IF at this stage until the full details are known, but WHAT A FEICIN CHEEK?!?! McTw@fferty and co take the absolute biscuit
yes cheeky, arrogant, whatever. but honestly, who cares? they aren't selling something and running off with the money FFS. they are selling something and putting all the money into a communal pot. quite frankly i dont care what they sold to BT - it's 50% more money so they have done a far better job than ERC.

and honestly, do you think anyone will not sign up to it because they weren't consulted when PRL and BT negotiated their deal? union blazers get paid very well to be able to put their egos aside and make sensible decisions. cheek just doesnt come into on when making this kind of decision.

It could be up to 50% more money, apparently (details still not known), and apparently only if they take everyone with them

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:46 pm

They're selling nothing that isn't theirs to sell, quins....... God, you guys!

I care. Sell something you own. Don't attempt to try and sell something you don't.

It's a simple principle.

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:47 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Brendan wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Brendan wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Brendan wrote:To be fair what is the point to only being able to see certain games on your tv and not see others because your country couldn't be bothered to buy rights.

What Irish TV will be rights to games not involving irish so we get a Rabo situation where the tournement doesn't become a product but more just your country.
bit confused by that brendan. what is your qn?
As far as i understand it all home games involving English clubs home games will be on BT.
If i wanted to watch as an example Sarries v Toulouse no irish tv company is going to show that.
As a result Irish viewers would only watch 4 games a week at most.

Also how do the WRU & SRU & IRFU(NI) sell their rights to the competition for their TV viewers as my understanding is the BT deal is for english teams for the UK so they have sold other unions rights
sarries v toulouse is an english home game. Ireland have access to BT sport! its a UK and Irish network.
So part of the BT deal is sold in IRFU area without their permission. What if the IRFU want to sell all the irish teams games to Sky sports to be shown only in ireland
thats the problem!
Is this true for the ROI? As I understand it, broadcasts are owned by the territories of the hosting nation. I would assume that the BTS signal decryption would canot have been passed across the border.

I know that BBC FTA aerial signals are soaked up by the Irish in their masses, but not copper/fibre ones, surely?
Or am I mistaken - as this it would seem to me to be an illegal act in a foreign administration.

no BT sport is an UK and IRISH network.

that is not illegal in the slightest. They could block regions from watching games and put on different shows for different regions if they want. But BT hasnt and hasnty had any euro games yet. They do broadcast the AP in ireland as they do in the whole of the UK as well.

Anything that comes in regards to a ERC in the future has not been yet

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:48 pm

SecretFly wrote:They're selling nothing that isn't theirs to sell, quins....... God, you guys!

I care. Sell something you own. Don't attempt to try and sell something you don't.

It's a simple principle.

You know yer precious widescreen TV, quinsforever, well I've just sold it to a bloke up the road for £2k - I'll only keep 10% commission, but we'll all be better off - happy?

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:48 pm

SecretFly wrote:They're selling nothing that isn't theirs to sell, quins....... God, you guys!

I care. Sell something you own. Don't attempt to try and sell something you don't.

Who has sold something that isn't theirs?

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:51 pm

Toohey wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.
It's a red herring because you don't like it coming up. Neither did the IRFU head, Phillip Browne. You both agree there at least.

PRL... and their partner BT, were assuming the rights of an ERC body...before contacting those who would be part of that ERC type body. PRL were assuming the full rights to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of all potential Unions...before they spoke to any of the Unions.

If you can't understand the silly arrogance and impotency of that move then... c'est la vie, you never will, quins. It's always irrelevant when you don't like the sound of it... as the PRL said about the Pro12
The problem is...you have made all that up. I know some of you guys like to make something up in one post and then complain about how outrageous it is in the next but that doesn't make it the truth? BT purchased the rights to the Aviva teams home games in any future European competition. Nothing wrong with that. Move on.

Toohey, I don't have the energy to make things up about this current..issue. It has more than enough divergent truths hanging around to keep us all armed and ready for combat for months into the future.

Another thing, if you weren't interested enough in all this at the very beginning, when public statements were being made in brash sequences..then perhaps its best not call anybody a liar now?

by quinsforever Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:51 pm

SecretFly wrote:They're selling nothing that isn't theirs to sell, quins....... God, you guys!

I care. Sell something you own. Don't attempt to try and sell something you don't.

It's a simple principle.

if you're not in the tournament those rights dont exist. so they have "sold" nothing they dont own.

if you're going to be all high and mighty, ERC sold something they didnt own. the unions who were signed up to ERC allowed ERC to sell the rights on everyone's behalf. but ERC never "owned" anything

did you expect PRL would talk to the unions before negotiating with BT? that would have been the most incredibly dumb move on their part, so i can see why they didnt.

by **Notch** Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:52 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
I know that BBC FTA aerial signals are soaked up by the Irish in their masses, but not copper/fibre ones, surely?
Or am I mistaken - as this it would seem to me to be an illegal act in a foreign administration.

I've explained this to you before- all of Ireland get the BBC channels due to a treaty with the the British government, in return RTE, RTE2 and TG4 are provided in Northern Ireland.

No-one is 'eavesdropping' on the BBC or anything.

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:53 pm

the only entity I can see doing that(selling something that isn't theirs) is the ERC getting a deal with sky for another EURO cup including english games when england have already contractually bound with bt for there games

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:54 pm

Notch wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
I know that BBC FTA aerial signals are soaked up by the Irish in their masses, but not copper/fibre ones, surely?
Or am I mistaken - as this it would seem to me to be an illegal act in a foreign administration.
I've explained this to you before- all of Ireland get the BBC channels due to a treaty with the the British government, in return RTE, RTE2 and TG4 are provided in Northern Ireland.

No-one is 'eavesdropping' on the BBC or anything.

fair enough

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 3:58 pm

It might actually be fairer if you lot give all of the UK your channels as well though!(not that i particularly want them- but its FAIR!)

by Poorfour Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:03 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.
It's a red herring because you don't like it coming up. Neither did the IRFU head, Phillip Browne. You both agree there at least.

PRL... and their partner BT, were assuming the rights of an ERC body...before contacting those who would be part of that ERC type body. PRL were assuming the full rights to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of all potential Unions...before they spoke to any of the Unions.

If you can't understand the silly arrogance and impotency of that move then... c'est la vie, you never will, quins. It's always irrelevant when you don't like the sound of it... as the PRL said about the Pro12

Firstly, where's your source for that? All that I have ever seen is the statement that the PRL had sold the rights to broadcast their home games in any future European tournament.

Secondly, who has or does not have what rights is actually a bit irrelevant. All the rights are up for negotiation. In theory, the RFU could refuse to ratify the BT deal and might even be able to make it stand up in court. In theory, the unions could disband the ERC and walk away from the Sky deal. Neither is likely to happen - seems much more likely to me that both contracts will remain in some form but the overlaps will be negotiated away.

Thirdly, to brand it as "silly arrogance and impotency" suggests that maybe you haven't understood it. The participants here aren't stupid. Both the PRL / BT and the ERC / Sky will have known going into it that they were taking a risk and that they probably wouldn't end up with the full deal. But the BT deal is demonstrably not impotent: it was only by having a viable financial alternative to the ERC that the PRL was able to make anything happen at all. You may not like it, and I suspect we will never agree about whether it was "arrogant" or a commercial necessity, but I don't think you can claim it was "impotent" given how far the Rabo unions have moved (from a start point of 5 years of entrenchment).

by **Notch** Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:08 pm

mystiroakey wrote:It might actually be fairer if you lot give all of the UK your channels as well though!(not that i particularly want them- but its FAIR!)

Hey! Take that up with the British government! They made the deal not me Whistle

In all seriousness, it's because of regionalisation. What the rest of ireland gets is BBC NI. Which, you know, is basically the same thing as everywhere else but has occasional changes to the schedule- like tonight when they show 'Ulster Rugby Live' on BBC 2. The deal is really that freeview channels provided by the state broadcaster in Northern Ireland are available for the rest of Ireland and vice versa.

I guess the disparity comes from the fact Northern Ireland is a relatively small part of the United Kingdom compared to the whole Irish nation, but I suppose the point is the deal concerns sharing broadcasting rights on the island of Ireland not the British Isles in general.

I'd say a lot more people watch the BBC down there than RTE up here, but it's a good deal in general.

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:10 pm

Wow so the BBC(us license fee payers) pay for irish rugby shows!! that basically contribute to the whole of the IRFU system

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:12 pm

and absolutely none of us watch the current HC on streams....................

so it's all done in the BEST possible taste! zen

by SecretFly Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:13 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Wow so the BBC(us license fee payers) pay for irish rugby shows!! that basically contribute to the whole of the IRFU system

Call it a down payment on what you owe us for shipping Connacht to ...Connacht.

by Portnoy's Complaint Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:15 pm

Don't the Irish get an unreciprocated vote when they live in Blighty?

by **Notch** Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:16 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Wow so the BBC(us license fee payers) pay for irish rugby shows!! that basically contribute to the whole of the IRFU system

Yep, for Ulster we do pay and for the Welsh and Scottish regions.

Personally I've paid my license fee every year since I was about 18 and rugby is the only thing I watch! Ulster Rugby traditionally get very big TV audiences in NI. I say, ditch Jonathon Ross and invest more in the Pro12.

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:17 pm

SecretFly wrote:and absolutely none of us watch the current HC on streams....................

so it's all done in the BEST possible taste!

by Toohey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:17 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Toohey wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:

can we please stop wasting any more time on this, it's a total irrelevancy.
It's a red herring because you don't like it coming up. Neither did the IRFU head, Phillip Browne. You both agree there at least.

PRL... and their partner BT, were assuming the rights of an ERC body...before contacting those who would be part of that ERC type body. PRL were assuming the full rights to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of all potential Unions...before they spoke to any of the Unions.

If you can't understand the silly arrogance and impotency of that move then... c'est la vie, you never will, quins. It's always irrelevant when you don't like the sound of it... as the PRL said about the Pro12
The problem is...you have made all that up. I know some of you guys like to make something up in one post and then complain about how outrageous it is in the next but that doesn't make it the truth? BT purchased the rights to the Aviva teams home games in any future European competition. Nothing wrong with that. Move on.
Toohey, I don't have the energy to make things up about this current..issue. It has more than enough divergent truths hanging around to keep us all armed and ready for combat for months into the future.

Another thing, if you weren't interested enough in all this at the very beginning, when public statements were being made in brash sequences..then perhaps its best not call anybody a liar now?

Show me one piece of evidence that the PRL and BT deal includes rights other than for English home games? You can't because it doesn't exist. For you to believe it does would also mean that you assume that a company with a market cap of £28 billion and probably over 100 lawyers being stupid enough to think that signing a deal with the PRL meant they had rights for 5 other countries home games. Would also mean the PRL thinking they could sell them. Do you really think that is possible?

by ME-109 Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:19 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Don't the Irish get an unreciprocated vote when they live in Blighty?

British citizens are allowed to vote in General elections if they live in the Republic. They are not allowed to vote in Referenda or Presidential elections.

by stub Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:19 pm

So is there anything new today?

by **Notch** Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:21 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Don't the Irish get an unreciprocated vote when they live in Blighty?

All EU citizens get the vote in Britain and Ireland- only presidential elections in Ireland are limited to Irish citizens. But prior to the EU arrangement, Irish could vote in Britain and Brits could vote in Ireland due to a treaty that gives reciprocal voting rights across the two countries.

Again, the only exception was/is for Brits voting in Presidential elections. As Ireland is a Republic and Britain a monarchy there is no British equivalent to Presidential elections. Brits have the right to vote in all Irish elections barring Presidential elections (and referenda thanks ME-109) and Irish the right to vote in all British elections.

The short answer is no, thats not accurate- the two countries share reciprocal voting rights independently of the EU (but would do so as EU members anyway).

by R!skysports Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:22 pm

stub wrote:So is there anything new today?

I just had a chocolate sundae, which was new - yum

by mystiroakey Fri 25 Oct 2013, 4:25 pm

New in what way?

not out of date?

by Sponsored content