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 Sin é Tue 29 Oct 2013, 9:56 pm

quinsforever wrote:As they all should do stub. Ain't no Celtic alliance out of altruism. It's about trying to hold strong for the best deal. Witness the vitriol when WRR made their statement Monday!

The Irish teams would be welcomed with open arms, but they are sticking by their celtic & Italian friends. I'd say that would be hard for you to get your head around alright!

Good ridence to the WRR - they should be kicked out of the Rabo.

by Totalflanker Tue 29 Oct 2013, 10:11 pm

quinsforever wrote:As they all should do stub. Ain't no Celtic alliance out of altruism. It's about trying to hold strong for the best deal. Witness the vitriol when WRR made their statement Monday!

Quins - actually think the WRR position is a bit of red herring, had much more to do with putting pressure on the WRU for a better financial deal in their own negotiation rather than any major coup for the RCC.

by Poorfour Tue 29 Oct 2013, 11:05 pm

Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:As they all should do stub. Ain't no Celtic alliance out of altruism. It's about trying to hold strong for the best deal. Witness the vitriol when WRR made their statement Monday!
The Irish teams would be welcomed with open arms, but they are sticking by their celtic & Italian friends. I'd say that would be hard for you to get your head around alright!

Good ridence to the WRR - they should be kicked out of the Rabo.

Utter tosh. The Irish are every bit as self interested as anyone else in this game. They are also the ones with the most to lose from any change in the status quo and their best hope of preserving it is to hold an alliance of Rabo teams together.

The "two unions bad, four unions good" tone of many of the posts here is hypocritical or naive to the point of stupidity. Still, I have been amused watching some of the desperate justifications for why nothing will ever change.

The Irish Times piece was particularly funny. Boil it down to the actual content and what it said was "it won't happen, because I don't believe it." Like Victor Meldrew with a brogue.

by mr-bryns-attitude Tue 29 Oct 2013, 11:23 pm

Totalflanker wrote:
quinsforever wrote:As they all should do stub. Ain't no Celtic alliance out of altruism. It's about trying to hold strong for the best deal. Witness the vitriol when WRR made their statement Monday!
Quins - actually think the WRR position is a bit of red herring, had much more to do with putting pressure on the WRU for a better financial deal in their own negotiation rather than any major coup for the RCC.

That's one possible explanation of WRR positioning,but whatever they say carries little weight as they are dependant on WRU monies for their survival. Also roger lewis ruffled a few feathers telling the regions to sign a new participation agreement or else, ie no funding,no referees,no insurance. I understand fellow celts frustrations at the regions rocking the boat but the important thing is the unions are showing a united front thus far and as such along with IRB backing still pack a decent punch.

by Guest Tue 29 Oct 2013, 11:39 pm

Poorfour wrote:
Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:As they all should do stub. Ain't no Celtic alliance out of altruism. It's about trying to hold strong for the best deal. Witness the vitriol when WRR made their statement Monday!
The Irish teams would be welcomed with open arms, but they are sticking by their celtic & Italian friends. I'd say that would be hard for you to get your head around alright!

Good ridence to the WRR - they should be kicked out of the Rabo.
Utter tosh. The Irish are every bit as self interested as anyone else in this game. They are also the ones with the most to lose from any change in the status quo and their best hope of preserving it is to hold an alliance of Rabo teams together.

The "two unions bad, four unions good" tone of many of the posts here is hypocritical or naive to the point of stupidity. Still, I have been amused watching some of the desperate justifications for why nothing will ever change.

The Irish Times piece was particularly funny. Boil it down to the actual content and what it said was "it won't happen, because I don't believe it." Like Victor Meldrew with a brogue.

Who are the two bad unions, Poorfour? and who has been implying this? I don't think many, if any, are complaining about RFU, or FFR. Do you mean PRL, and LNR? Those disagreeing with the likes of McCafferty have every right to their opinion, as do those who support PRL views.
Of course the unions in the Rabo should be united. They are all in the same league, a league that was formed just for them as they don't have the means, financial, or player base, to form a 12/14 team professional league within their own union.
The Irish Times piece was little more than a counter to the nonsense article reported in the Guardian. The purpose of which, I guess, was to highlight the Guardian article for the nonsense piece of trash journalism it is.
True the Times piece is of similar standard to that of the Guardian. Don't hear you complaining/laughing at the Guardian article though...

by KiaRose Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:13 am

quinsforever wrote:have just been on the times website. absolutely nothing about the HC/RCC. interesting. must mean negotiations are ongoing and probably rather delicate.

Whilst there hasn't been anything in The Times for the past few days, they have published at least two stories in the past few weeks on the lack of take-up for BT Sports. One of these was in their Business Section and the other in the general News section. In the first of these they quoted broadcasting analysts who suggested that BT were signing far fewer subscribers than they had hoped and that this was why they were running a number of freebie weekends etc. BT riposted by saying that subs were on target. The other day they ahd another story where they quoted the audience figures for some of BT's non-football programmes. They were really pretty rubbish.

It has been agreed on here, The Times are not a disinterested party in the whole HEC / RCC ruckus.

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 11:28 am

Poorfour wrote: They [Irish] are also the ones with the most to lose from any change in the status quo

Of course they have. A solid absolute fact.

It's why McCafferty and his French club friends started the ball rolling in the first place. It's certainly not a plan to clip the wings of Italian, Scottish or even Welsh clubs. No, I've said it in the past and I still believe it today, it's a plan specifically targeted at reducing the influence of Irish Provinces (Irish rugby) at the business end of any European contest. It's a design to enhance the presence of English or French sides in the play-off stages of the elite European Cup - and to strengthen an English or French side's odds of winning that elite Cup.

I'm glad your post admits that fact, Poorfour.
Six automatic places now each for English and French sides (same as usual) One automatic place for Irish sides (down dramatically by two).

... and another thing your post exposes is that yes - National demarcation (the knowing distinction between club Nationalities) is very much a true player in the final desired solution put forward by PRL/LNR, despite all the protestations to the contrary coming from many English posters thoughout this debate.

by stub Wed 30 Oct 2013, 11:45 am

SecretFly wrote:
Poorfour wrote: They [Irish] are also the ones with the most to lose from any change in the status quo
Of course they have. A solid absolute fact.

It's why McCafferty and his French club friends started the ball rolling in the first place. It's certainly not a plan to clip the wings of Italian, Scottish or even Welsh clubs. No, I've said it in the past and I still believe it today, it's a plan specifically targeted at reducing the influence of Irish Provinces (Irish rugby) at the business end of any European contest. It's a design to enhance the presence of English or French sides in the play-off stages of the elite European Cup - and to strengthen an English or French side's odds of winning that elite Cup.

I'm glad your post admits that fact, Poorfour.
Six automatic places now each for English and French sides (same as usual) One automatic place for Irish sides (down dramatically by two).

... and another thing your post exposes is that yes - National demarcation (the knowing distinction between club Nationalities) is very much a true player in the final desired solution put forward by PRL/LNR, despite all the protestations to the contrary coming from many English posters thoughout this debate.

That's an interesting perspective Fly... I wasn't sure what you meant by the bit in bold though? Is this just another way of saying that everyone is looking out for their own national interests?

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:17 pm

It states, stub, that whenever I've argued in the past that the Pro12 is distinctly different in structure to the AP (which is a single Union/one Nation League) and also to the Top14 (which is a single Union/one Nation League), I've often been met with a zealous defence of the idea that the 'National' identity of clubs in a European League event has no dicernible significance.

The inference was that the 'Frenchness' of the Top14 and the 'Englishness' of the AP had no significance to the technicalities of any future structures adhering to a European Club event.

I, in turn, always counter-argued that assumption. On the contrary, I stated, Nationality of sides (whether they be English, Welsh or Italian) very much was a central issue in the debate, as the Leagues are what they are and no amount of wordplay will disguise the brutal truth.

The brutal truth is that Top14 is a distinctly 'French' League, that in being so it assists the maintenance of rugby Union within the borders of France, that in being so it specifically assists the French National team select its players...and that in being so, it guarantees Six Automatic places for specifically 'French' rugby concerns in a pan European Elite Contest.

I repeat, the specific part of European rugby that is 'Irish' has been instantly weakened by the adoption of new proposals that seek to structurally reduce the Automatic places given to it - to One.

The final solution to the frustrations of both PRL and LNR clubs is to design new rules that clip the wings of their most potent challengers in Europe to date. Some call that a 'fair' new system. I call it loading a dice in the casino's favour.

by Casartelli Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:24 pm

Totalflanker wrote:
quinsforever wrote:As they all should do stub. Ain't no Celtic alliance out of altruism. It's about trying to hold strong for the best deal. Witness the vitriol when WRR made their statement Monday!
Quins - actually think the WRR position is a bit of red herring, had much more to do with putting pressure on the WRU for a better financial deal in their own negotiation rather than any major coup for the RCC.

I don't think they know why they released that statement.

Not exactly Welsh rugby's finest press release moment.

by **Notch** Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:37 pm

But BT Sports ratings have been pretty rubbish. Actually rugby is their only success story, the only rights they have acquired and actually attracted more viewers than before.

Their football viewing figures have been highly underwhelming and not enough people are watching most of their other shows to even register reliably on BARB ratings. Sample size is too small.

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:41 pm

Notch wrote:But BT Sports ratings have been pretty rubbish. Actually rugby is their only success story, the only rights they have acquired and actually attracted more viewers than before.

Their football viewing figures have been highly underwhelming and not enough people are watching most of their other shows to even register reliably on BARB ratings. Sample size is too small.

Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings.

by Sin é Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:50 pm

BT Sport has star quality but remains a trailing comet in Sky's firmament

Telecom company adopts more sober tone in face of daunting challenge presented by its well-established rival, Sky

"BT face a real uphill battle in doing what they're doing. They are doing OK as the second partner. But they are so far behind that they really are going to have to ramp up the costs if they want to make a significant challenge," said Toby Syfret, a pay-TV expert at Enders Analysis who chronicled the previous attempts by Setanta and ESPN to take on Sky.

"There are real issues: they've got a long way to go to outstrip Sky, they are relying on it being free and piling up losses in the meantime."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2013/oct/29/bt-sport

BTs agm is tomorrow.

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:51 pm

^ exactly what i have been saying in the past..

by stub Wed 30 Oct 2013, 12:58 pm

SecretFly wrote:It states, stub, that whenever I've argued in the past that the Pro12 is distinctly different in structure to the AP (which is a single Union/one Nation League) and also to the Top14 (which is a single Union/one Nation League), I've often been met with a zealous defence of the idea that the 'National' identity of clubs in a European League event has no dicernible significance.

The inference was that the 'Frenchness' of the Top14 and the 'Englishness' of the AP had no significance to the technicalities of any future structures adhering to a European Club event.

I, in turn, always counter-argued that assumption. On the contrary, I stated, Nationality of sides (whether they be English, Welsh or Italian) very much was a central issue in the debate, as the Leagues are what they are and no amount of wordplay will disguise the brutal truth.

The brutal truth is that Top14 is a distinctly 'French' League, that in being so it assists the maintenance of rugby Union within the borders of France, that in being so it specifically assists the French National team select its players...and that in being so, it guarantees Six Automatic places for specifically 'French' rugby concerns in a pan European Elite Contest.

I repeat, the specific part of European rugby that is 'Irish' has been instantly weakened by the adoption of new proposals that seek to structurally reduce the Automatic places given to it - to One.

The final solution to the frustrations of both PRL and LNR clubs is to design new rules that clip the wings of their most potent challengers in Europe to date. Some call that a 'fair' new system. I call it loading a dice in the casino's favour.

I see Fly and I agree that you cannot take nationality out of the equation here - that is what makes the HC as entertaining as it is. To me it also seems undeniable that club rugby does aid the development of the national game from grass roots upwards and so this process of change is important at all levels across Europe.

I have also read on here that the Irish clubs stand to lose more than any other of the Pro 12 unions because they have set up their structure to maximise success under the current ERC set up. If that is correct then I guess the Irish are victims of their own success? Again, from what I read, it would seem that the PRL and LNR have been dissatisfied for years and that therefore this has been coming to a head for a long time. It does seem unsatisfactory and messy that it has been left to get to this point before meaningful negotiations are happening. It's going to be difficult to now build good foundations for a new competition which is a real shame.

However, as I have said previously I am sure that it is well understood by all parties that in order to generate enough money to support the clubs/regions/provinces we already have in Europe and to grow more we need attractive competitive rugby. To achieve this there needs to be strong PRO 12 sides involved (of all nationalities) which gives me great hope that something workable will evolve. I can't gloss over the fact however that in order to rebalance the competition there will be winners and losers and there will never be agreement on what is fair/unfair or realistic/unrealistic.

by Guest Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:04 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Notch wrote:But BT Sports ratings have been pretty rubbish. Actually rugby is their only success story, the only rights they have acquired and actually attracted more viewers than before.

Their football viewing figures have been highly underwhelming and not enough people are watching most of their other shows to even register reliably on BARB ratings. Sample size is too small.
Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings.

How many subscribers are BT adding each day? Do you a source for this?

by doctor_grey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:10 pm

SecretFly wrote:It states, stub, that whenever I've argued in the past that the Pro12 is distinctly different in structure to the AP (which is a single Union/one Nation League) and also to the Top14 (which is a single Union/one Nation League), I've often been met with a zealous defence of the idea that the 'National' identity of clubs in a European League event has no dicernible significance.

The inference was that the 'Frenchness' of the Top14 and the 'Englishness' of the AP had no significance to the technicalities of any future structures adhering to a European Club event.

I, in turn, always counter-argued that assumption. On the contrary, I stated, Nationality of sides (whether they be English, Welsh or Italian) very much was a central issue in the debate, as the Leagues are what they are and no amount of wordplay will disguise the brutal truth.

The brutal truth is that Top14 is a distinctly 'French' League, that in being so it assists the maintenance of rugby Union within the borders of France, that in being so it specifically assists the French National team select its players...and that in being so, it guarantees Six Automatic places for specifically 'French' rugby concerns in a pan European Elite Contest.

I repeat, the specific part of European rugby that is 'Irish' has been instantly weakened by the adoption of new proposals that seek to structurally reduce the Automatic places given to it - to One.

The final solution to the frustrations of both PRL and LNR clubs is to design new rules that clip the wings of their most potent challengers in Europe to date. Some call that a 'fair' new system. I call it loading a dice in the casino's favour.

Fly, I am with you a bit more than half-way. I absolutely agree that the Pro12 is not only a different structure to that of the Premiership and Top 14, but it is also a different business model. Consequently, the merging of the Premiership/Top 14 business models, which are similar enough for this discussion, with that of the Pro 12 is illogical, is always going to be difficult, and will inevitably involve significant compromise. The circular discussion of whether the current Euro Cup is a competition involving 6 Unions or 3 Leagues actually derails the issue. The simple fact the Heineken Cup is both. The Premiership/Top 14 see qualification as earned by finishing, loosely, in the top half of their leagues. The Pro 12 see it as requiring appropriate representation from each Union. To me, both are right. So what to do? We need all unions/nations involved. But we have to respect each league, too.

It seems we are moving towards a compromise which might be acceptable to some, but causes issues elsewhere. I don't think there is a perfect solution. I also think the Irish teams, which are clearly the best performing of the Pro12 teams, will still be earning their way into the new competition. I know that does not satisfy your concern, but the reality is they are the best in the Pro 12, as a block.

Mate, I don't think anyone is going to be satisfied, no matter how we look at it. The Premiership/Top 14 are not satisfied now. I don't like the way this has unfolded either. The one big thing I don't like about the current competition is there are too many weak teams in the Heineken Cup which should be in the Amlin. If we want to have a team truly the best in Europe, we need to get rid of the easier/weaker teams to make each pool a pool of death. But that reduces the number of teams and the number of matches, which reduces revenue. Not happening. The only big picture solution, which won't happen, is one big massive Euro league, then we will have everyone through on merit and representing each union

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:11 pm

Munchkin wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Notch wrote:But BT Sports ratings have been pretty rubbish. Actually rugby is their only success story, the only rights they have acquired and actually attracted more viewers than before.

Their football viewing figures have been highly underwhelming and not enough people are watching most of their other shows to even register reliably on BARB ratings. Sample size is too small.
Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings.
How many subscribers are BT adding each day? Do you a source for this?

i dont need a source- its just obvious as day, many broadband owners dont even realise they get sports for free yet- just its just a case of them still finding out and watching it.. I only found out i have it for free on Virgin a month ago. I have also read that Bt broadband are steadily increasing their market share .. Do a google search for it if you need sources

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:12 pm

Ok just for you and as it only took 5 seconds

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/uk/UK-5.34

by **Notch** Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:13 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Notch wrote:But BT Sports ratings have been pretty rubbish. Actually rugby is their only success story, the only rights they have acquired and actually attracted more viewers than before.

Their football viewing figures have been highly underwhelming and not enough people are watching most of their other shows to even register reliably on BARB ratings. Sample size is too small.
Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings.

Indeed, but this is a bit like any team versus the All Blacks where Sky Sports are the All Blacks. You don't get to make too many mistakes.

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:17 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Ok just for you and as it only took 5 seconds

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/uk/UK-5.34

What is that graph saying, in your opinion, mystir?

by Guest Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:17 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Notch wrote:But BT Sports ratings have been pretty rubbish. Actually rugby is their only success story, the only rights they have acquired and actually attracted more viewers than before.

Their football viewing figures have been highly underwhelming and not enough people are watching most of their other shows to even register reliably on BARB ratings. Sample size is too small.
Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings.
How many subscribers are BT adding each day? Do you a source for this?
i dont need a source- its just obvious as day, many broadband owners dont even realise they get sports for free yet- just its just a case of them still finding out and watching it.. I only found out i have it for free on Virgin a month ago. I have also read that Bt broadband are steadily increasing their market share .. Do a google search for it if you need sources

Outstanding. With that sort of reasoning you're the perfect fit for the PRL machine. You should apply Very Happy

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:22 pm

Munchkin wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
Notch wrote:But BT Sports ratings have been pretty rubbish. Actually rugby is their only success story, the only rights they have acquired and actually attracted more viewers than before.

Their football viewing figures have been highly underwhelming and not enough people are watching most of their other shows to even register reliably on BARB ratings. Sample size is too small.
Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings.
How many subscribers are BT adding each day? Do you a source for this?
i dont need a source- its just obvious as day, many broadband owners dont even realise they get sports for free yet- just its just a case of them still finding out and watching it.. I only found out i have it for free on Virgin a month ago. I have also read that Bt broadband are steadily increasing their market share .. Do a google search for it if you need sources
Outstanding. With that sort of reasoning you're the perfect fit for the PRL machine. You should apply

When you ask such an obvious question you dont need a source. BT's market share is huge and increasing..And i followed on that comment with reasoning and i even gave you a source

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:25 pm

SecretFly wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Ok just for you and as it only took 5 seconds

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/uk/UK-5.34
What is that graph saying, in your opinion, mystir?

What it says is that bt have been steadily increasing its market share over the years 2007-2012

we also know that bt have started to add bt sports in for free for BB subscribers during 2013- although we haven't got figures for 2013 i am 99.99% sure that has also increased their market share more due to the offer.

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:27 pm

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/05/isp-bt-tops-6-7-million-uk-broadband-subscribers-as-1-3m-users-take-fttc.html

to prove my reasoning(as if anyone with a brain actually needed it - see above!

"results to 31st March 2013 (Q1-2013), which revealed that the operators retail ISP division had increased its fixed line broadband subscribers by +136,000 in the quarter to total 6,704,000 (up from the +122k added in Q4-2012 and +88k in Q3-2012)."

by Guest Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:34 pm

mystiroakey wrote:When you ask such an obvious question you dont need a source. BT's market share is huge and increasing..And i followed on that comment with reasoning and i even gave you a source

Deflection......

It is an obvious question. You make an assertion without evidence, and so the obvious response is to ask for evidence, and source.

Here is your assertion:

"Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings."

You respond with a little graph showing BT's UK market share of broadband subscribers (around 28%). Not BT Sport subscribers... Not the evidence required. Nice try Very Happy

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:37 pm

Ok now if anyone needs more number crunching/

90% of the UK has BB- 32% of that percentage is with BT,

Many of the virgin subscribers on the premium package also get BT sport for free, and also a few that dont pay for it.

A certain percentage of Sky subscribers also have BT sport.

A large percentage of irish households also have BT sport for free.

The potential audience for BT sport is huge and numbers are also steadily if not dramatically increasing.

However interesting enough - I dont think many realise they have it for free!!

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:38 pm

Munchkin wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:When you ask such an obvious question you dont need a source. BT's market share is huge and increasing..And i followed on that comment with reasoning and i even gave you a source
Deflection......

It is an obvious question. You make an assertion without evidence, and so the obvious response is to ask for evidence, and source.

Here is your assertion:

"Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings."

You respond with a little graph showing BT's UK market share of broadband subscribers (around 28%). Not BT Sport subscribers... Not the evidence required. Nice try

around 28% - do you have a problem reading graphs?

BT's market share is probably up to approx 32% at present minimum(and was 30% in 2012)

everyone with BT BB has BT sport for free. They just need to be told!!

And no i didn't give an assertion without evidence- I told you a fact that everyone should already know at this stage of the debate!

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:42 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Ok just for you and as it only took 5 seconds

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/uk/UK-5.34
What is that graph saying, in your opinion, mystir?
What it says is that bt have been steadily increasing its market share over the years 2007-2012

we also know that bt have started to add bt sports in for free for BB subscribers during 2013- although we haven't got figures for 2013 i am 99.99% sure that has also increased their market share more due to the offer.

Yes, but that's a specific broadband market share increase. Part of that increase now might include the carrot of 'free' sports.... but you yourself said that part is up in the air and will take more time to consolidate itself before becoming a distinctly quantifiable reason why BT broadband is gaining increased market share.

Maybe people just find BT a natural broadband choice without worrying too much about the package inducements. I think at one time I had access to Setanta sports because of broadband package. I never, ever watched it though. It was a lure that wasn't required and wasn't utilised.

But advertisers will pay rates more specifically according to how many people actually watch the BT sports packages. Advertisers don't throw money around. They'll want to know specifics of just how many people are actually watching sport on BT...for free.

As you said before somewhere - the 'free' bit is the method BT choose to create market share and hope the numbers will eventually turn into profit. But it's a gamble that even a very wealthy company must see prove itself eventually.

by **Notch** Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:50 pm

Yeah exactly, how many people with BT Sport for free will want to continue when the subs kick in.

Right now, my Dad is one of those with BT Broadband. I'd say if European rugby is on BT he'll keep it when he has to pay and if it isn't he won't.

But if he was a football fan and not a rugby fan not sure- I mean from January on BT Sport have only one televised Prem game a week and a lot less Live Sport in general than Sky.

Christmas will be a massive time for them as this is when most of their live football is. I guess success in the short term is if they can stop broadband customers leaking to Sky, who have poor enough broadband.

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:53 pm

The undisputable fact is whether people are watching bt sports or not from there 'free' source- BT BB subscribers is increasing means that its basically impossible for them to be not gaining BT sports viewers.

because someone isn't going to freely subscribe to BT sport and then unsubscribe are they?

More and more will just be subscribing each day from the available population that can subscribe FREELY and it is also picking up many new BB subscribers based on the FREE deal who will be subscribing from day 1!

We need to wait about another year or so to see if these channels can actually reach the available population it has available to it.

But that will only happen if it gets sport worth watching or it will end up like setanta did, or to a slightly better extent premier sports, espn (in the uk of course).

Once this viewing figures rack up(we could potentially theoretically see a huge jump just in one day as the infrastructure is already there for the viewers) the money BT could generate from ads will increase 100 fold

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:54 pm

Notch wrote:Yeah exactly, how many people with BT Sport for free will want to continue when the subs kick in.

Right now, my Dad is one of those with BT Broadband. I'd say if European rugby is on BT he'll keep it when he has to pay and if it isn't he won't.

But if he was a football fan and not a rugby fan not sure- I mean from January on BT Sport have only one televised Prem game a week and a lot less Live Sport in general than Sky.

Christmas will be a massive time for them as this is when most of their live football is. I guess success in the short term is if they can stop broadband customers leaking to Sky, who have poor enough broadband.

it doesn't really matter as yet does it- The brand has to be strong enough at that point. BT aren't stupid and they understand that!!!

by Guest Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:56 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:When you ask such an obvious question you dont need a source. BT's market share is huge and increasing..And i followed on that comment with reasoning and i even gave you a source
Deflection......

It is an obvious question. You make an assertion without evidence, and so the obvious response is to ask for evidence, and source.

Here is your assertion:

"Notch BT sport hasn't been going for more than 6 months yet!!

They are however gaining so many subscribers each day.

You have to wait for them to settle in before you can judge the channel on ratings."

You respond with a little graph showing BT's UK market share of broadband subscribers (around 28%). Not BT Sport subscribers... Not the evidence required. Nice try
around 28% - do you have a problem reading graphs?

BT's market share is probably up to approx 32% at present minimum(and was 30% in 2012)

everyone with BT BB has BT sport for free. They just need to be told!!

And no i didn't give an assertion without evidence- I told you a fact that everyone should already know at this stage of the debate!

You haven't provided evidence. You provide a link to a graph showing the BT UK market share of broadband subscribers. Not BT sport which is your assertion, and to which you have failed to support with evidence in any of the links you provide. I did read through the links, and especially one specifically on BT Sport. Nothing about gaining many new BT Sport subscribers everyday.

So your fact is only a fact in your noggin. Show me evidence of these "so many BT Sports subscribers each day"?

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 1:57 pm

Munchkin if you can't interpret this data then thats not really my problem is it pal!

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:01 pm

Munchkin

I could have easily gone the easy route and just given you bt subscribers links(http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/article/1194829/bt-sport-hits-one-million-subscribers), but that misses the much larger picture of HOW and WHY we are seeing the increase in BT sports subscribers.

I would have thought just posting a link like that that anyone can get and view within seconds is a waste of everyones time.

by Scrumpy Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:03 pm

I'll pay to have BT sport if and when they do decide to charge for it, imo its saved NH rugby for the normal fan.

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:07 pm

"It has saved NH rugby for the normal fan"

Such a heavy statement in such few words, Scrumpy.

Help me out please.

Elaborate on this bit: "It has saved..."
Elaborate on this bit: "NH rugby"
And elaborate on this bit: "for the Normal fan."

by **Notch** Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:10 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Notch wrote:Yeah exactly, how many people with BT Sport for free will want to continue when the subs kick in.

Right now, my Dad is one of those with BT Broadband. I'd say if European rugby is on BT he'll keep it when he has to pay and if it isn't he won't.

But if he was a football fan and not a rugby fan not sure- I mean from January on BT Sport have only one televised Prem game a week and a lot less Live Sport in general than Sky.

Christmas will be a massive time for them as this is when most of their live football is. I guess success in the short term is if they can stop broadband customers leaking to Sky, who have poor enough broadband.

it doesn't really matter as yet does it- The brand has to be strong enough at that point. BT aren't stupid and they understand that!!!

Right, but right now it's unclear if they are going to double down on the football Premiership rights and try and outbid Sky for another block or whether they have a European rugby competition to show. They don't have any international sport yet.

BT are not stupid, but it's a big battle ahead for them.

by Scrumpy Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:15 pm

"It has saved..." Injected new life (+cash) into the game.

"NH rugby" More people are talking about rugby union, which can only be a good thing for NH rugby, I've noticed a difference in my office as the staff no longer just talk about football on a Monday morning.

"for the Normal fan." More people have access to rugby union and not just the drones who hand ridiculous amounts of money to Sky on a monthly basis.

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:17 pm

The disappointing viewing figures for PL through BT is due to the fact that most hardcore PL fans have sky already and they have more games than bt(5-1), and SKY dont offer bt sports for free. And now that sky are offering cheap bb with it means many subscribe to sky BB anyway..

So what does BT do.

1. outbid sky for the bulk of PL. INsanely expensive .

2. Or get as many other sports as possible.

I can't see how The Rugby championship will help viewing figures on its own, it already has the AP!!. It needs to try and get many lesser watched sports like cricket, golf, athletics, cycling, tennis etc

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:32 pm

Latest news from the RFU http://www.rfu.com/news/2013/october/news-articles/281013_samoa_reaction_2003RFU
I kid you not.

RFU wrote:RWC 2003 reaction – Johnson demands improvement after Samoa scare

28 October 2013

“Too many mistakes,” says England skipper Martin Johnson
“We had belief in ourselves that we could do a job for our country” – Semo Sititi

Martin Johnson believes his side are making far too many mistakes and says an unconvincing 35-22 win over Samoa is proof that England must improve hugely if they are to mount a serious challenge for the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

blah, blah blah

How can anyone have confidence in this bunch of incompetents?

And English supporters have to hope and expect that this bunch of old farts can perform a measure of control over the PRL (who themselves, if their brains were made of gunpowder, couldn't part their own hair).

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:35 pm

that page appears dead to me Portnoy..?

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:37 pm

Scrumpy wrote:"It has saved..." Injected new life (+cash) into the game.

"NH rugby" More people are talking about rugby union, which can only be a good thing for NH rugby, I've noticed a difference in my office as the staff no longer just talk about football on a Monday morning.

"for the Normal fan." More people have access to rugby union and not just the drones who hand ridiculous amounts of money to Sky on a monthly basis.

..............In England.

by mystiroakey Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:39 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:"It has saved..." Injected new life (+cash) into the game.

"NH rugby" More people are talking about rugby union, which can only be a good thing for NH rugby, I've noticed a difference in my office as the staff no longer just talk about football on a Monday morning.

"for the Normal fan." More people have access to rugby union and not just the drones who hand ridiculous amounts of money to Sky on a monthly basis.
..............In England.

you mean in the uk and ireland

by Scrumpy Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:40 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:"It has saved..." Injected new life (+cash) into the game.

"NH rugby" More people are talking about rugby union, which can only be a good thing for NH rugby, I've noticed a difference in my office as the staff no longer just talk about football on a Monday morning.

"for the Normal fan." More people have access to rugby union and not just the drones who hand ridiculous amounts of money to Sky on a monthly basis.
..............In England.

Please elaborate "...............In England"

?

by Jenifer McLadyboy Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:41 pm

Scrumpy wrote:"It has saved..." Injected new life (+cash) into the game.

"NH rugby" More people are talking about rugby union, which can only be a good thing for NH rugby, I've noticed a difference in my office as the staff no longer just talk about football on a Monday morning.

"for the Normal fan." More people have access to rugby union and not just the drones who hand ridiculous amounts of money to Sky on a monthly basis.

I have "saved" Cadburys. I bought a bar of Dairy milk last week.

Ah. So when you say "NH" you mean "In my office"

Huge massive office there boss.

"Normal fan" = people who can receive BT Sports. Yup. That includes the whole NH. Or at least the main bit around a "certain office" in the bath area.

Laugh

by Guest Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:43 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Munchkin if you can't interpret this data then thats not really my problem is it pal!

Now, mystiroakey, do try to remain calm.

I will try to explain in simple terms the problem I have with your fact.

You claim that BT Sport subscribers are adding by 'so many each day'. OK? My question is what evidence do you have in support of this? You then provide a link to a graph showing the BT UK market share of broadband subscribers, and not specifically BT Sport subscribers. So BT is increasing its market share of UK broadband, but you have not provided any evidence to suggest that along with this increase they are also increasing their number of BT sports subscribers, even if BT sport is free. Now, I have BT channels on my smart tv Very Happy

, and get a free channel, but I do not subscribe. The point being that although BT is there for me I don't subscribe to it, and instead watch most of my sport on BBC, and SKY.
What I would like to know is what is this increase of 'so many BT sport subcribers, people actually watching BT Sport, every day' that you assert?

by SecretFly Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:43 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:"It has saved..." Injected new life (+cash) into the game.

"NH rugby" More people are talking about rugby union, which can only be a good thing for NH rugby, I've noticed a difference in my office as the staff no longer just talk about football on a Monday morning.

"for the Normal fan." More people have access to rugby union and not just the drones who hand ridiculous amounts of money to Sky on a monthly basis.
..............In England.
you mean in the uk and ireland

I mean in England. BT haven't influenced the watching of, the interest in, the enjoyment of or the money streaming into Irish rugby. I'd say the same might be true for France...Italy.... You'll "UK" me if I mention Wales and Scotland, so they'll talk for themselves about how much AP rugby they watch on BT.

by Scrumpy Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:46 pm

But surely the more people who become interested in Rugby Union is good for the game as a whole in the NH.

Please try and think outside your own little goldfish bowls.

BT deserve a clap

by Don Alfonso Wed 30 Oct 2013, 2:49 pm

SecretFly wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:"It has saved..." Injected new life (+cash) into the game.

"NH rugby" More people are talking about rugby union, which can only be a good thing for NH rugby, I've noticed a difference in my office as the staff no longer just talk about football on a Monday morning.

"for the Normal fan." More people have access to rugby union and not just the drones who hand ridiculous amounts of money to Sky on a monthly basis.
..............In England.
you mean in the uk and ireland
I mean in England. BT haven't influenced the watching of, the interest in, the enjoyment of or the money streaming into Irish rugby. I'd say the same might be true for France...Italy.... You'll "UK" me if I mention Wales and Scotland, so they'll talk for themselves about how much AP rugby they watch on BT.

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10

The top rugby show on the two BT sport channels appears have an audience of 20,000.

By comparison, the Ulster Rugby Live coverage of the game against the Cardiff Blues started with 60,000 and finished with 119,000 viewers – an audience share (in NI obviously,) of 18%.

by Sponsored content