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 quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 1:50 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:Sorry quins poster after poster said they found 6/6/8 an acceptable compromise - no revisionism there

I don't think third each, in cash, is fair - but that why I didn't mention it.
We lost that round
I seem to recall I suggested something like 30/30 - France and England 11/11 - Ireland/Wales 9/9 - Scotland/Italy as being equitable

Regarding my proposed voting structure please let the PRL and the English clubs know as I understand they are asking for far more
Just because the cash split is as it does not mean the control split will be the same - in fact I am certain it wont

3 things.

firstly 6/6/7 and a play-off is the compromise on the compromise
secondly there were reams of discussion denying the fairness of even 6/6/8, led notably by TJ and Maes. if you are referring to the "silent majority" of 606 readers who agreed that 6/6/8 was a fair compromise, well they dont count because they didnt speak up. discussion was dominated by others
thirdly, it only ever really was about the money and in that respect the unions have fallen wholly on their swords, as i strongly predicted, much to general outcry.

by quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 1:56 pm

Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:"we shall see"

Well, that at least a development, quins. As up until now you seemed as adamant as some PRL members that everything was going to be given to the New Lord Admirals of European Rugby Union. You weren't hedging your bets at all. As far as you were concerned it was all a done deal - utter capitulation of Pro12/ Individual National Unions and the ERC to each and every demand put forward by PRL/LNR.

Now at least, you begin to share my view that we should Wait.
i was adamant that the prl/lnr were in by far the stronger negotiating position, and they were therefore likely to get the better deal. which they clearly have done so far.

i havent made any statements about what the likely governance will be. but the commercial decisions will be made by clubs of that there is no doubt. irb will be offered a fig leaf, at least enough of a one to cover lapasset's small embarrassment

i have always said time will tell.
With Sky coming on board as broadcaster, there is every chance that the uncommitted English club supporter would watch the Pro12 as they would the Aviva Premiership. That gives the Pro 12 a much bigger audience than the Aviva, bearing in mind that Sky has a worldwide network.

The clubs overseeing the commercial element is nothing different to what has been there before. McCafferty was Chair of the ERC Commercial Committee at one stage, and its chaired by the President of Toulouse.

Commercial Sub-Committee
René Bouscatel Chairman
Max Guazzini LNR
Andrea Rinaldo FIR
Mick Dawson IRFU (Leinster CEO)
Dominic Hayes Premiership Rugby
Dominic McKay Scottish Rugby
Craig Maxwell WRU
Jean-Pierre Lux ERC Chairman
Derek McGrath ERC Chief Executive

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/erc/about/commercial_sub_committee.php#.UnuWxCTfb-k

from his bio on ESPN:

Under McCafferty the Guinness Premiership has gone from strength to strength, despite criticisms from certain quarters over the influx of foreign players and the immovable stance employed over international commitments.

McCafferty also serves as commercial chairman of the ERC, the body that governs the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup.

re bolding above on SKY...

is this a serious comment or are you winding me up? SKY does not have a global network. but even if they did so what? put all the games free on the internet then that will give a truly global reach. wont make much money though. and that is what its all about - do u think SKY are paying as much for rabo12 tv rights as they would pay for AP?

do you really think an uncommitted english club supported is going to choose to watch rabo UNLESS HE ALREADY HAPPENS TO HAVE SKY ANYWAY? really? because that is what the TV bidding war is all about...its about winning new subscribers based on attractive content. it's not about giving away unwanted content to existing subscribers.

by SecretFly Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:06 pm

Shush you two. Things has just got way more serious. European club rugby???

Small change in my pocket at this stage.

Ireland team has just been announced. New coaching team strapped in...heart tablets ready.... This rugby world just got 100% more serious for me now! Wink

by geoff999rugby Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:08 pm

quinsforever wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Sorry quins poster after poster said they found 6/6/8 an acceptable compromise - no revisionism there

I don't think third each, in cash, is fair - but that why I didn't mention it.
We lost that round
I seem to recall I suggested something like 30/30 - France and England 11/11 - Ireland/Wales 9/9 - Scotland/Italy as being equitable

Regarding my proposed voting structure please let the PRL and the English clubs know as I understand they are asking for far more
Just because the cash split is as it does not mean the control split will be the same - in fact I am certain it wont
3 things.

firstly 6/6/7 and a play-off is the compromise on the compromise
secondly there were reams of discussion denying the fairness of even 6/6/8, led notably by TJ and Maes. if you are referring to the "silent majority" of 606 readers who agreed that 6/6/8 was a fair compromise, well they dont count because they didnt speak up. discussion was dominated by others
thirdly, it only ever really was about the money and in that respect the unions have fallen wholly on their swords, as i strongly predicted, much to general outcry.

Blimey the most revisionist post I have seen in a long time - talk about rewriting the past warning

by quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:11 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Sorry quins poster after poster said they found 6/6/8 an acceptable compromise - no revisionism there

I don't think third each, in cash, is fair - but that why I didn't mention it.
We lost that round
I seem to recall I suggested something like 30/30 - France and England 11/11 - Ireland/Wales 9/9 - Scotland/Italy as being equitable

Regarding my proposed voting structure please let the PRL and the English clubs know as I understand they are asking for far more
Just because the cash split is as it does not mean the control split will be the same - in fact I am certain it wont
3 things.

firstly 6/6/7 and a play-off is the compromise on the compromise
secondly there were reams of discussion denying the fairness of even 6/6/8, led notably by TJ and Maes. if you are referring to the "silent majority" of 606 readers who agreed that 6/6/8 was a fair compromise, well they dont count because they didnt speak up. discussion was dominated by others
thirdly, it only ever really was about the money and in that respect the unions have fallen wholly on their swords, as i strongly predicted, much to general outcry.
Blimey the most revisionist post I have seen in a long time - talk about rewriting the past

how so?

by quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:14 pm

ask your countryman SF if i have been consistent on this topic. strident, yes. polarising, yes. but consistent too.

by Irish Londoner Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:29 pm

[/quote]re bolding above on SKY...

is this a serious comment or are you winding me up? SKY does not have a global network. but even if they did so what? put all the games free on the internet then that will give a truly global reach. wont make much money though. and that is what its all about - do u think SKY are paying as much for rabo12 tv rights as they would pay for AP?

do you really think an uncommitted english club supported is going to choose to watch rabo UNLESS HE ALREADY HAPPENS TO HAVE SKY ANYWAY? really? because that is what the TV bidding war is all about...its about winning new subscribers based on attractive content. it's not about giving away unwanted content to existing subscribers.[/quote]
Quins, you're absolutely right that only those who already have SKY will watch Rabo, it might increase their take up slightly in Wales/Ireland/Scotland and maybe a few "exiles" in England, equally how many extra packages are BT selling on the basis that it's got the Jeff - I bet the majority of new customers are there for the soccer - lots of tennis fans signed up for exclusive WTA coverage?

As in a lot of the specualtion surrounding this it might be intersting to see some facts rather than guesses -I wonder how many people have actively switched to BT TV, as opposed to those who already had it as part of their broadband package - the take up for ESPN when it had some football and some Jeff wasn't that huge. And how many will stay with BT as/if/when the sports package becomes chargeable.

Behind closed doors I wonder if someone at BT TV purchasing isn't getting their nuts jammed in a vice regularly for doing a very costly deal with PRL, which has brought them nothing but bad publicity and if it does cause increasing financial problems outside the English clubs BT will get the mud with PRL in the rest of the UK/Ireland, appears not to be able to offer the European competition they wanted, are BT going to devote hours and costs to showing the third tier competition which was deemed so important to the whole sucess of the new competition - commentators and crews off to all corners of Europe?

As I'm sure many of the pro HEC posters on here do, I wish the Jeff teams nothing but good luck with the BT domestic deal, more coverage and more money will do the clubs a great deal of good but it might have been wiser to have kept the deal for Europe seperate.

by Sin é Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:33 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:"we shall see"

Well, that at least a development, quins. As up until now you seemed as adamant as some PRL members that everything was going to be given to the New Lord Admirals of European Rugby Union. You weren't hedging your bets at all. As far as you were concerned it was all a done deal - utter capitulation of Pro12/ Individual National Unions and the ERC to each and every demand put forward by PRL/LNR.

Now at least, you begin to share my view that we should Wait.
i was adamant that the prl/lnr were in by far the stronger negotiating position, and they were therefore likely to get the better deal. which they clearly have done so far.

i havent made any statements about what the likely governance will be. but the commercial decisions will be made by clubs of that there is no doubt. irb will be offered a fig leaf, at least enough of a one to cover lapasset's small embarrassment

i have always said time will tell.
With Sky coming on board as broadcaster, there is every chance that the uncommitted English club supporter would watch the Pro12 as they would the Aviva Premiership. That gives the Pro 12 a much bigger audience than the Aviva, bearing in mind that Sky has a worldwide network.

The clubs overseeing the commercial element is nothing different to what has been there before. McCafferty was Chair of the ERC Commercial Committee at one stage, and its chaired by the President of Toulouse.

Commercial Sub-Committee
René Bouscatel Chairman
Max Guazzini LNR
Andrea Rinaldo FIR
Mick Dawson IRFU (Leinster CEO)
Dominic Hayes Premiership Rugby
Dominic McKay Scottish Rugby
Craig Maxwell WRU
Jean-Pierre Lux ERC Chairman
Derek McGrath ERC Chief Executive

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/erc/about/commercial_sub_committee.php#.UnuWxCTfb-k

from his bio on ESPN:

Under McCafferty the Guinness Premiership has gone from strength to strength, despite criticisms from certain quarters over the influx of foreign players and the immovable stance employed over international commitments.

McCafferty also serves as commercial chairman of the ERC, the body that governs the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup.
re bolding above on SKY...

is this a serious comment or are you winding me up? SKY does not have a global network. but even if they did so what? put all the games free on the internet then that will give a truly global reach. wont make much money though. and that is what its all about - do u think SKY are paying as much for rabo12 tv rights as they would pay for AP?

do you really think an uncommitted english club supported is going to choose to watch rabo UNLESS HE ALREADY HAPPENS TO HAVE SKY ANYWAY? really? because that is what the TV bidding war is all about...its about winning new subscribers based on attractive content. it's not about giving away unwanted content to existing subscribers.

Sky has a network around the globe - for example, we can watch Super Rugby/ITM cup here, why not Rabo there? Obviously the SH countries wouldn't be too interested in watching the Aviva Premiership.

If you think rugby is anything more than content to fill time for BT, you are having a laugh. Sky's raison d'etre isn't to build their broadband subscribers, its to dominate sporting coverage. BT's main interest is to hold onto their broadband subscribers.

The thing about Sky is that they dominate the sporting coverage in England because of premiership soccer, so while I don't expect them to acquire any more subscribers from what is a saturated market, they will more than likely hold onto their existing subscribers and the Rabo can fill that rugby hole left vacant by the Aviva, so Sky will have to pay for it - probably the same as to what they were paying the PRL. So the Rabo now has an additional country that it is broadcasting to as well as Scotland, Ireland & Wales where it is Free to Air.

No comment on McCafferty's performance as ERC Commerical Chairman then Very Happy

?

by quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:37 pm

re bolding above on SKY...

is this a serious comment or are you winding me up? SKY does not have a global network. but even if they did so what? put all the games free on the internet then that will give a truly global reach. wont make much money though. and that is what its all about - do u think SKY are paying as much for rabo12 tv rights as they would pay for AP?

do you really think an uncommitted english club supported is going to choose to watch rabo UNLESS HE ALREADY HAPPENS TO HAVE SKY ANYWAY? really? because that is what the TV bidding war is all about...its about winning new subscribers based on attractive content. it's not about giving away unwanted content to existing subscribers.[/quote]Quins, you're absolutely right that only those who already have SKY will watch Rabo, it might increase their take up slightly in Wales/Ireland/Scotland and maybe a few "exiles" in England, equally how many extra packages are BT selling on the basis that it's got the Jeff - I bet the majority of new customers are there for the soccer - lots of tennis fans signed up for exclusive WTA coverage?

As in a lot of the specualtion surrounding this it might be intersting to see some facts rather than guesses -I wonder how many people have actively switched to BT TV, as opposed to those who already had it as part of their broadband package - the take up for ESPN when it had some football and some Jeff wasn't that huge. And how many will stay with BT as/if/when the sports package becomes chargeable.

Behind closed doors I wonder if someone at BT TV purchasing isn't getting their nuts jammed in a vice regularly for doing a very costly deal with PRL, which has brought them nothing but bad publicity and if it does cause increasing financial problems outside the English clubs BT will get the mud with PRL in the rest of the UK/Ireland, appears not to be able to offer the European competition they wanted, are BT going to devote hours and costs to showing the third tier competition which was deemed so important to the whole sucess of the new competition - commentators and crews off to all corners of Europe?

As I'm sure many of the pro HEC posters on here do, I wish the Jeff teams nothing but good luck with the BT domestic deal, more coverage and more money will do the clubs a great deal of good but it might have been wiser to have kept the deal for Europe seperate.[/quote]
good points, but even facts at this early stage are not all that informative. SKY didnt build its subscriber based in a year.

BT/PRL deal was peanuts compared to whats paid for football. and i think that AP plus RCC (if they get it) would definitely make people switch from SKY to BT. might even get new viewers into the sport too.

i dont think the publicity has been bad for BT amongst the english, their core market. i obviously understand why the irish and scots are upset, but that's a different issue.

by quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 2:42 pm

when did mccafferty stop being commercial sub-committee chairman?

he may have done a good or bad job, we will never know. but he certainly wasnt involved in the new SKY deal (that was bouscatel) if that is what you are referring to.

maybe what he saw while on this sub-committee is what gives him such confidence that prl can run the commercial side of a competition more effectively?

by Irish Londoner Thu 07 Nov 2013, 3:05 pm

Sin, I doubt very much if Sky will pay the Rabo anything like they paid for the Jeff, firstly they don't have exclusive coverage as the game are on the BBC regional channels and S4C, secondly they will recognise that the Rabo are on the financial ropes a bit, rather like when the Football League and SFA had to come back to Sky when their platforms collapsed under them (a warning for PRL here maybe) so the money will be less.
The advantage Sky do have is established penetration into the market, as rugby fans we maybe all overestimate the number of people who watch rugby on TV as a given thing to watch. what the Sky platform gives the Rabo is exposure as moving wallpaper to people who just have the TV on in the background, who might stick the rugby on because it looks more interesting that Antiques Roadshow on the BBC, and show jumping, sailing and whatever else Sky is showing at that time.
Compare the viewing figures for any sport (apart from possibly football) and it's obvious that a large percentage of the viewers are "Casuals" - people who watch any other tennis than Wimbledon, rugby other than the 6Ns, horse racing other than the Derby or Grand National, rowing outside the Olympics and the Boat Race.
Quins - British Telecom (the clue is in the name) should be serving all parts of Great Britain not just England. Something I have noticed when I've watch BT Sport on the Freeview days is the lack of advertising, not adverts as such but adverts for other products than BT Sport itself - as you have it can you confirm that when it's not on Freeview and presumably they are using the advert time to plug the product that they are getting (and selling) commercial advertising time?

by Sin é Thu 07 Nov 2013, 3:06 pm

quinsforever wrote:when did mccafferty stop being commercial sub-committee chairman?

he may have done a good or bad job, we will never know. but he certainly wasnt involved in the new SKY deal (that was bouscatel) if that is what you are referring to.

maybe what he saw while on this sub-committee is what gives him such confidence that prl can run the commercial side of a competition more effectively?

I presume he resigned when he issued notice to quit the HCup. Interesting that the French clubs stayed involved.

ESPN did a feature on the most influential people in world rugby. They ranked Murdock/Sky as No. 4 for the following reasons.

4. Rupert Murdoch (Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive, News Corporation)

The Australian-born media magnate and the founder, chairman, and chief executive officer of News Corporation bankrolls rugby in the southern hemisphere - and has done for years - thanks to big-money broadcasting deals that underpin Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations. His media empire includes a large shareholding in BSkyB, the home of Sky Sports in the UK, SKY Network Television in New Zealand and Foxtel in Australia as well as a host of newspaper titles around the world. Odds are that if you are watching or reading about the game then Murdoch has had a hand in it somewhere.

Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/131697.html#UeZmSiayrAaLB40T.99

by Sin é Thu 07 Nov 2013, 3:14 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:Sin, I doubt very much if Sky will pay the Rabo anything like they paid for the Jeff, firstly they don't have exclusive coverage as the game are on the BBC regional channels and S4C, secondly they will recognise that the Rabo are on the financial ropes a bit, rather like when the Football League and SFA had to come back to Sky when their platforms collapsed under them (a warning for PRL here maybe) so the money will be less.
The advantage Sky do have is established penetration into the market, as rugby fans we maybe all overestimate the number of people who watch rugby on TV as a given thing to watch. what the Sky platform gives the Rabo is exposure as moving wallpaper to people who just have the TV on in the background, who might stick the rugby on because it looks more interesting that Antiques Roadshow on the BBC, and show jumping, sailing and whatever else Sky is showing at that time.

Its in Sky's long term interests that the Rabo thrives and it won't thrive if they are after a cheap deal. BT are pumping money into the PRL. I'd imagine Sky won't just lie down for them.

The Aviva Premiership didn't have great viewing numbers on Sky. I'd say with the number of expat celts living in England, there is a good chance that it might do well.

by quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 3:36 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:Sin, I doubt very much if Sky will pay the Rabo anything like they paid for the Jeff, firstly they don't have exclusive coverage as the game are on the BBC regional channels and S4C, secondly they will recognise that the Rabo are on the financial ropes a bit, rather like when the Football League and SFA had to come back to Sky when their platforms collapsed under them (a warning for PRL here maybe) so the money will be less.
The advantage Sky do have is established penetration into the market, as rugby fans we maybe all overestimate the number of people who watch rugby on TV as a given thing to watch. what the Sky platform gives the Rabo is exposure as moving wallpaper to people who just have the TV on in the background, who might stick the rugby on because it looks more interesting that Antiques Roadshow on the BBC, and show jumping, sailing and whatever else Sky is showing at that time.
Compare the viewing figures for any sport (apart from possibly football) and it's obvious that a large percentage of the viewers are "Casuals" - people who watch any other tennis than Wimbledon, rugby other than the 6Ns, horse racing other than the Derby or Grand National, rowing outside the Olympics and the Boat Race.
Quins - British Telecom (the clue is in the name) should be serving all parts of Great Britain not just England. Something I have noticed when I've watch BT Sport on the Freeview days is the lack of advertising, not adverts as such but adverts for other products than BT Sport itself - as you have it can you confirm that when it's not on Freeview and presumably they are using the advert time to plug the product that they are getting (and selling) commercial advertising time?

actually IL, BT is no longer british telecom. just like BP dropped British Petroleum and retained only the initials. IIRC BT changed their trading name in the 90s. just like i still call the chocolate bars Marathons, i guess it takes a long time for some names to be changed in the collective consciousness. they dont have any universal service obligation like the post office, not for internet, so i am pretty confident that are just focused on making money.

regarding BT Sport, cant answer your qn as i dont have it! dont have SKY either. or terrestrial TV! am a bit of a wierdo as i had to turn them off or i used to find myself watching random sports at 2am rather than getting some sleep.

i go to games when i can, or pay per view for particularly interesting days of matches. so cant answer your qn re advertising.

by Irish Londoner Thu 07 Nov 2013, 3:52 pm

Quins, I stand sorrected, still seems a bit silly to hack off a small but significant part of your potential customers though, they still operate in the Celtic fringe.

I bet you have fun with the TV Licensing people though.

by quinsforever Thu 07 Nov 2013, 3:58 pm

LOL - i actually spoke to them directly. they said as long as i only watch non-live TV over the internet then i am fine. no need to pay for a TV license for using iPlayer.

i am sure BT didnt quite realise how nationalistic this whole HC thing was going to become when they signed up. so far though, both BT and SKY in public seem to be keeping very dignified silences. wonder if thats going to change shortly.

by Irish Londoner Thu 07 Nov 2013, 4:17 pm

Personally I'd like it all to over ASAP, one way or the other, ideally with some acceptable compromise and we can get back to the important issues, like what Stephen Jones and Jonathan Davies are for!

by Guest Sat 09 Nov 2013, 9:12 am

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/09/bt-sport-deal-champions-league-rights

If BT can pay £1bn for Champions League football, they can certainly pay a little more than the £100 odd million for the AP next time round......

by geoff999rugby Sat 09 Nov 2013, 9:36 am

Recwatcher wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/09/bt-sport-deal-champions-league-rights

If BT can pay £1bn for Champions League football, they can certainly pay a little more than the £100 odd million for the AP next time round......

That does not follow at all.
Rugby Union is small fry compared to soccer

by Guest Sat 09 Nov 2013, 9:54 am

That will be up to those who negotiate the next deal. I see BT have bought a SKY Movies package too.

by Portnoy's Complaint Sat 09 Nov 2013, 11:23 am

It would appear that BTS will have to increase charges for their service to pay for the Champions' League. Whether that is an enhanced pay-to-view scheme for the CL encrypted service for those games I'm a little unclear from the R5 brief report how they are thinking.

Kudos and fascination in equal measure is due to BT for engaging a public spokesman with a speech impediment though.

by geoff999rugby Sat 09 Nov 2013, 11:54 am

Recwatcher wrote:That will be up to those who negotiate the next deal. I see BT have bought a SKY Movies package too.

It will also be up to those in BT in determining its value - which is a small fraction of soccer

by Sin é Sat 09 Nov 2013, 12:46 pm

BT paid double what Sky/ITV paid last time.

The PRL look right fools now for putting all their eggs in the one basket now. Sky won't touch the Aviva Premiership again and BT will know it.

I wonder did BT bid for the Heineken Cup when ERC were selling the rights? They could be in right trouble if they prevented BT from bidding for the contract as their BT deal would have been done a long time before they signalled their intention to quit the Heineken Cup competition.

by broadlandboy Sat 09 Nov 2013, 12:52 pm

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the PRL/BTS deal was done in 5 weeks after PRL had given notice to not renew with ERC

by Sin é Sat 09 Nov 2013, 1:06 pm

I don't think so. At the announcement of the Aviva deal McCafferty is still saying 'if' they pull out of the Heineken Cup.

The stance has been seen as a selfish one, designed to enhance the strong at the expense of the relatively weak, Scotland and Italy, but Premiership Rugby's chief executive, Mark McCafferty, who last month revealed his members would take part in an Anglo-French tournament if they pulled out of the Heineken Cup, denied that is the case.

"I [McCafferty] want to emphasise that our objective is to remain in the Heineken Cup," he said. "The television deal we have agreed with BT will increase the size of the pot for everyone in Europe. Scotland and Italy will benefit: what we want is to increase the size of the cake rather than argue about slices.

"Our television contract will allow that and there could be a similar deal in France. Everyone benefits and far from looking to shrink the game in Europe, we propose to introduce a third competition to include teams from countries like Russia, Spain, Georgia and Portugal.

"We are ambitious for rugby in Europe. We do not want to go down the Anglo‑French Cup route, but if nothing changes it is something we would have to do. We have come up with a financial solution and now we have to get a rugby one."

from Guardian (the mouthpiece of the PRL).

by andyi Sat 09 Nov 2013, 1:44 pm

Sin é wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:Sin, I doubt very much if Sky will pay the Rabo anything like they paid for the Jeff, firstly they don't have exclusive coverage as the game are on the BBC regional channels and S4C, secondly they will recognise that the Rabo are on the financial ropes a bit, rather like when the Football League and SFA had to come back to Sky when their platforms collapsed under them (a warning for PRL here maybe) so the money will be less.
The advantage Sky do have is established penetration into the market, as rugby fans we maybe all overestimate the number of people who watch rugby on TV as a given thing to watch. what the Sky platform gives the Rabo is exposure as moving wallpaper to people who just have the TV on in the background, who might stick the rugby on because it looks more interesting that Antiques Roadshow on the BBC, and show jumping, sailing and whatever else Sky is showing at that time.
Its in Sky's long term interests that the Rabo thrives and it won't thrive if they are after a cheap deal. BT are pumping money into the PRL. I'd imagine Sky won't just lie down for them.

The Aviva Premiership didn't have great viewing numbers on Sky. I'd say with the number of expat celts living in England, there is a good chance that it might do well.

The sky deal for the Rabo12 is nowhere near as expensive as Sky's previous deal for the AP and way less than BT's deal for the AP.

It was reported as bringing a 50% increase in TV revenue to the RABO, so its worth half of the total value of the current deals with BBC ALBA, BBC Northern Ireland, RTE, TG4, BBC Wales and S4C.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/news/10031777/RaboDirect-Pro12-boosted-with-Sky-Sports-television-deal.html

From SKY's point of view, its a good deal, they get 30 games to replace the 23 they had with the last AP deal, at a fraction of the cost of keeping those.

At the end of the day domestic league rugby union hasn't been that bigger deal for SKY, since they lost majority coverage to Setanta/ESPN years ago.

by Sin é Sat 09 Nov 2013, 2:09 pm

Of course it doesn't generate as much money as the Aviva Premiership - its not the sole broadcaster. Nearly all the games are still available on Free to Air. Rabo's revenues have just gone up 50%. It will also keep the Free to Air people on their toes because they know Sky would probably like exclusive rights.

Most people are well aware that rugby is just a schedule filler for Sky in England & Scotland. It wouldn't be that in either Ireland or Wales.

by Standulstermen Sat 09 Nov 2013, 2:24 pm

One thing I would say after today's news is that sky are going to have to get the finger out. They have seemed a bit impotent so far to halt BT but I reckon they will have to come out fighting now BT have got one of their big big draws

by Sin é Sun 10 Nov 2013, 10:53 am

The game is up quinners. The FFR won't let the LNR compete in the franglo cup!

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/iain-morrison-camou-fends-off-heineken-cup-rebels-1-3182188

by Portnoy's Complaint Sun 10 Nov 2013, 11:02 am

Sin é wrote:The game is up quinners. The FFR won't let the LNR compete in the franglo cup!

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/iain-morrison-camou-fends-off-heineken-cup-rebels-1-3182188

Perhaps.

Hootsmon wrote:When the dust finally settles, it may yet prove the turning point in the long-running battle for control of the soul of European rugby.

If that turns out to be true, we will have a grumpy Frenchman by the name of Pierre Camou to thank.

If.

by Sin é Sun 10 Nov 2013, 11:17 am

He is talking about the soul of European Rugby!

There will not be a Franglo Cup. Can the English clubs afford to not be in European competition?

by Portnoy's Complaint Sun 10 Nov 2013, 11:30 am

I honestly don't know. But probably yes.

by quinsforever Sun 10 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I honestly don't know. But probably yes.

camou may or may not be bluffing. but if the french and english clubs decline to participate in an ERC run HC then everyone will be a loser, but IRFU, WRU and SRU by far the biggest losers.

this all depends whether Camou can get the French clubs not to suport the PRL. if top14 come out in support of PRL again, its game over for Camou and ERC. If top14 jump ship and get back into bed with ERC, then PRL have a very tricky decision to make, but i suspect they will choose to stay out of any ERC club competition.

Camou is all the celtic union's last hope of getting something done within ERC. however he also risks blowing the thing up completely for the celtic unions so i would hesitate congratulating him yet. he has no interest in the celtic unions, only on the domestic power dispute between union and professional league.

by geoff999rugby Sun 10 Nov 2013, 4:11 pm

Makes a European competition without the English a step closer imo

by Standulstermen Sun 10 Nov 2013, 5:24 pm

If camou has 4 teams already in the bag then Goze needs to find a way to get them back or cave.

All very difficult to say what's true and what isnt

by SecretFly Sun 10 Nov 2013, 5:31 pm

quinsforever wrote:

Camou ... he has no interest in the celtic unions, only on the domestic power dispute between union and professional league.

And he shares that lack of interest in 'Celtic' unions with others - Indeed, the selfish self interest of all participants is the only truth worth repeating, - as you often say yourself, quins.
Everyone wants what's best for themselves - the allies they choose to fight alongside is simply an expediency to stengthen their own interests.
Nobody cares about anybody else - BUT - behind all the chit-chat, everyone does want a European contest, as such a competition is in everyone's selfish self interest. The devil, and the divisions of opinion,are in the detail.

by stub Sun 10 Nov 2013, 5:40 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:

Camou ... he has no interest in the celtic unions, only on the domestic power dispute between union and professional league.
And he shares that lack of interest in 'Celtic' unions with others - Indeed, the selfish self interest of all participants is the only truth worth repeating, - as you often say yourself, quins.
Everyone wants what's best for themselves - the allies they choose to fight alongside is simply an expediency to stengthen their own interests.
Nobody cares about anybody else - BUT - behind all the chit-chat, everyone does want a European contest, as such a competition is in everyone's selfish self interest. The devil, and the divisions of opinion,are in the detail.

True that, I reckon SF . Wink

by quinsforever Sun 10 Nov 2013, 9:54 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:Makes a European competition without the English a step closer imo

whats the difference between geoff999 and geoff998?

by quinsforever Sun 10 Nov 2013, 9:56 pm

stub wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:

Camou ... he has no interest in the celtic unions, only on the domestic power dispute between union and professional league.
And he shares that lack of interest in 'Celtic' unions with others - Indeed, the selfish self interest of all participants is the only truth worth repeating, - as you often say yourself, quins.
Everyone wants what's best for themselves - the allies they choose to fight alongside is simply an expediency to stengthen their own interests.
Nobody cares about anybody else - BUT - behind all the chit-chat, everyone does want a European contest, as such a competition is in everyone's selfish self interest. The devil, and the divisions of opinion,are in the detail.
True that, I reckon SF .

i agree too. ironic, while war is breaking out between (delete as you think appropriate or wish for) FFR, LNR, PRL, peace has positively broken out on 606v2... Yahoo

by Big Mon 11 Nov 2013, 9:50 am

quinsforever wrote:
this all depends whether Camou can get the French clubs not to suport the PRL. if top14 come out in support of PRL again, its game over for Camou and ERC. If top14 jump ship and get back into bed with ERC, then PRL have a very tricky decision to make, but i suspect they will choose to stay out of any ERC club competition.

I think there's always been the internal power struggle in France to contend with. Union/club relationships are pretty good everywhere else, bar Wales (but I get the impression the clubs there are much more at the mercy of the union so practically can't oppose them too much). FFR will undoubtedly want something in return for agreeing any departure from ERC, but I'm not sure what they can offer the clubs to convince them to stay in ERC?

Whatever the outcome there I cannot see English clubs competing in an ERC run tournament for at least 2 (and more likely 3) seasons after this one. If Lux is gone then maybe after that they would consider returning.

by Sin é Mon 11 Nov 2013, 10:04 am

According to Midi Olympique, FFR are offering any French club who is willing to compete in the HCup next year 2million Euro. Very Happy

Tim O'Connor ‏@timoconnorbl 10m
Major story in Midol @midi_olympique: Info @midi_olympique : la FFr prête à payer les clubs qui joueront la #HCup. Cc : @ercrugby @lnr_fr

Also giving out Central Contracts.

by Big Mon 11 Nov 2013, 10:20 am

Sin é wrote:According to Midi Olympique, FFR are offering any French club who is willing to compete in the HCup next year 2million Euro.

Tim O'Connor ‏@timoconnorbl 10m
Major story in Midol @midi_olympique: Info @midi_olympique : la FFr prête à payer les clubs qui joueront la #HCup. Cc : @ercrugby @lnr_fr

Also giving out Central Contracts.

Is the 2m euro in addition to the normal payments?? If so that is serious desperation on the part of FFR - especially if it only buys them a 1 year reprieve.

Realistically are the clubs going to want central contracts? Most clubs seem to prefer to keep the control of the players and pick up the tab, so unless a club is in real dire straits financially that seems like a sacrifice on the clubs part not an offer from the FFR.

by Jenifer McLadyboy Mon 11 Nov 2013, 10:20 am

Big wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
this all depends whether Camou can get the French clubs not to suport the PRL. if top14 come out in support of PRL again, its game over for Camou and ERC. If top14 jump ship and get back into bed with ERC, then PRL have a very tricky decision to make, but i suspect they will choose to stay out of any ERC club competition.
I think there's always been the internal power struggle in France to contend with. Union/club relationships are pretty good everywhere else, bar Wales (but I get the impression the clubs there are much more at the mercy of the union so practically can't oppose them too much). FFR will undoubtedly want something in return for agreeing any departure from ERC, but I'm not sure what they can offer the clubs to convince them to stay in ERC?

Whatever the outcome there I cannot see English clubs competing in an ERC run tournament for at least 2 (and more likely 3) seasons after this one. If Lux is gone then maybe after that they would consider returning.

Lux is only in place until the end of this season anyway.

by Big Mon 11 Nov 2013, 10:28 am

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Lux is only in place until the end of this season anyway.

I wasn't aware of that, but that in itself provides a bit of a bargaining chip for FFR.

by Sin é Mon 11 Nov 2013, 10:34 am

Big wrote:
Sin é wrote:According to Midi Olympique, FFR are offering any French club who is willing to compete in the HCup next year 2million Euro.

Tim O'Connor ‏@timoconnorbl 10m
Major story in Midol @midi_olympique: Info @midi_olympique : la FFr prête à payer les clubs qui joueront la #HCup. Cc : @ercrugby @lnr_fr

Also giving out Central Contracts.
Is the 2m euro in addition to the normal payments?? If so that is serious desperation on the part of FFR - especially if it only buys them a 1 year reprieve.

Realistically are the clubs going to want central contracts? Most clubs seem to prefer to keep the control of the players and pick up the tab, so unless a club is in real dire straits financially that seems like a sacrifice on the clubs part not an offer from the FFR.

Don't know what it means, but up to now as far as I know, the Heineken Cup money has been split equally between the Top 14 & Pro D clubs, so they would be getting nothing from the HCup. Maybe they are just intending to split the money between the actual participants now.

I think the French clubs would be up for CCs. They want the FFR to select a squad of 30 international players and put them on central contracts. Toulouse (who has a lot of French internationals) have been complaining about the financial burden it is on them. From what I can gather*, to get a central contract you have to remain loyal to the Heineken Cup.

*Awaiting one of the French posters on Munsterfans to post up the full article.

by Sin é Mon 11 Nov 2013, 10:38 am

Big wrote:
Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Lux is only in place until the end of this season anyway.
I wasn't aware of that, but that in itself provides a bit of a bargaining chip for FFR.

I don't think Lux is the problem with the French clubs. He might be with the English ones though. But Lux was/is an Independent Chair.

If I was McCafferty, I'd be looking to get back into banking Wink

by Big Mon 11 Nov 2013, 11:29 am

Sin é wrote:
Big wrote:
Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Lux is only in place until the end of this season anyway.
I wasn't aware of that, but that in itself provides a bit of a bargaining chip for FFR.
I don't think Lux is the problem with the French clubs. He might be with the English ones though. But Lux was/is an Independent Chair.

If I was McCafferty, I'd be looking to get back into banking

I don't want to bore by restating stuff that has been put down elsewhere, but surely Lux is very much a problem for the French clubs. It was Lux's appointment that kicked all of this off and got the French wanting to leave.

Back in 2007 the clubs in England and France were debating with their respective unions for more of a say in how ERC was run. If I recall the history of this dispute properly France had negotiated all bar one of their votes, with the FFR retaining the right to overrule and use all the French votes (presumably in exceptional circumstances). While the English clubs got half the English votes with the RFU saying they'd vote in accordance with their half (again unless there was an exceptional disagreement). At the time the French clubs threatened to leave, not because they were unhappy with their lot, but because they were unhappy that the English clubs (i.e. along with the Welsh regions the ones likely to vote with them) didn't have enough clout as they thought the RFU sideing with the unions would still mean the independently run clubs only had a minority vote. I can't remember exactly how this was settled off the top of my head, but there was some kind of agreement and things rumbled on.

Fast forward 4 years to Feb 2011. There was a vote for who would be ERC chairman, Wheeler (who LNR felt was sympathetic to the clubs needs) and Lux (status quo - he'd been in the post for about 8 years at the time). Wheeler would have won the vote and become chairman, but FFR used the powers above to commandeer the entire French vote and keep their man in. LNR were livid about this and a few months later hand in their notice to withdraw (which if I recall correctly they did before PRL).

Hence I think Lux is a very big deal to the French.

Had FFR not overuled the LNR vote, we would have had Wheeler as chair. Probably would have had more debate about potential changes without anyone threatening to pull out. The French, English and Welsh clubs would probably have been able to get some of the proposed amendments through based on their share of the vote, but nothing too outrageous with FFR and RFU able to step in with theirs if required. Instead we have the current shambles.

I think it's fair to say that this whole thing is as much about the power struggle between LNR and FFR as it is to do with the structure of European rugby.

by Guest Mon 11 Nov 2013, 12:06 pm

Big wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Big wrote:
Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Lux is only in place until the end of this season anyway.
I wasn't aware of that, but that in itself provides a bit of a bargaining chip for FFR.
I don't think Lux is the problem with the French clubs. He might be with the English ones though. But Lux was/is an Independent Chair.

If I was McCafferty, I'd be looking to get back into banking
I don't want to bore by restating stuff that has been put down elsewhere, but surely Lux is very much a problem for the French clubs. It was Lux's appointment that kicked all of this off and got the French wanting to leave.

Back in 2007 the clubs in England and France were debating with their respective unions for more of a say in how ERC was run. If I recall the history of this dispute properly France had negotiated all bar one of their votes, with the FFR retaining the right to overrule and use all the French votes (presumably in exceptional circumstances). While the English clubs got half the English votes with the RFU saying they'd vote in accordance with their half (again unless there was an exceptional disagreement). At the time the French clubs threatened to leave, not because they were unhappy with their lot, but because they were unhappy that the English clubs (i.e. along with the Welsh regions the ones likely to vote with them) didn't have enough clout as they thought the RFU sideing with the unions would still mean the independently run clubs only had a minority vote. I can't remember exactly how this was settled off the top of my head, but there was some kind of agreement and things rumbled on.

Fast forward 4 years to Feb 2011. There was a vote for who would be ERC chairman, Wheeler (who LNR felt was sympathetic to the clubs needs) and Lux (status quo - he'd been in the post for about 8 years at the time). Wheeler would have won the vote and become chairman, but FFR used the powers above to commandeer the entire French vote and keep their man in. LNR were livid about this and a few months later hand in their notice to withdraw (which if I recall correctly they did before PRL).

Hence I think Lux is a very big deal to the French.

Had FFR not overuled the LNR vote, we would have had Wheeler as chair. Probably would have had more debate about potential changes without anyone threatening to pull out. The French, English and Welsh clubs would probably have been able to get some of the proposed amendments through based on their share of the vote, but nothing too outrageous with FFR and RFU able to step in with theirs if required. Instead we have the current shambles.

I think it's fair to say that this whole thing is as much about the power struggle between LNR and FFR as it is to do with the structure of European rugby.

When did the Welsh clubs first side with PRL, and what was their part in the proposed amendments? It's a genuine question as I thought that RRW only committed to the PRL cause in principal recently. Their most recent statement possibly issued under the instruction of PRL, and only when RRW believed that PRL had their proposed new competition in the bag, more or less...

by Sin é Mon 11 Nov 2013, 12:09 pm

I'd say it was more Wheelers' non-appointment that kicked off all of this. The Unions were not going to hand over control to the clubs. Lux was meant to be neutral (as in not representing any organisation). I'd say the only difficulty the French & English clubs have with Lux is that he didn't side with them. The next chair of the ERC will most definately not be Wheeler or any club representative.

by Sin é Mon 11 Nov 2013, 1:10 pm

FFR offers clubs €2 million each to play in Heineken Cup – report

Pierre Camou, the president of the FFR, apparently held a meeting with representatives of the Top 14 sides last week.

A REPORT IN rugby newspaper Midi Olympique claims that the FFR (Fédération Française de Rugby) has offered the French clubs €2 million each to commit to playing in the Heineken Cup next season.

Pierre Camou, the president of the FFR, apparently chaired a secret meeting last Tuesday at Charles-de-Gaulle airport in France, which was attended by representatives of the Top 14 clubs, as well as several of their English counterparts.

From the outset of the announcement of plans for the Rugby Champions Cup, Camou has been strongly in opposition. This report suggests that Camou has now “raised his voice” to directly inform the French clubs that he is unhappy with their plans. The FFR chief is insistent that any European competition next season will continue to be governed by the ERC (European Rugby Cup).

According to Midi Olympique, the FFR is now ready to ensure that happens by delivering a payment of up to €2 million to each of the French clubs. Camou has reportedly also proposed the idea of signing any individual players who wish to continue playing in the Heineken Cup onto central federal contracts with the FFR, similar to what the IRFU does with its star players.

Camou is insistent that what the French clubs are planning to do in breaking away to form the Rugby Champions Cup is completely in contravention of the existing French rugby laws. When the plans for the RCC were first announced, the FFR were swift to remind the LNR (Ligue National de Rugby) that they had no right to organise a competition without the direct consent of both the FFR and the IRB (International Rugby Board).

Paul Goze, the LNR president, has repeatedly dismissed that notion in his dealings with the media over the last two months, but Camou reiterated his feelings at last week’s private meeting in Paris. The refusal of the French and English clubs to even consider the ERC’s recent concessions has seen Camou step into the picture with more decisiveness.

If this report is indeed true, it is good news for the ERC and for the IRFU, who are hoping that the Heineken Cup will continue next season. It is understood that Camou has support from several of the individual French clubs, including Toulon and Biarritz. This reported financial incentive may attract more of the other clubs onto the FFR’s side, and could result in the ERC surviving.

Murray Kinsella
http://www.thescore.ie/ffr-heineken-cup-2-million-1170241-Nov2013/

by Sponsored content