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

First topic message reminder :

I have heard it is:

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

Trying to find out is correct as we speak

well if the French clubs do join ERC and the Heineken Cup, they are going to need a lot more than a one-off Eur2m payment over the length of a 5 (or 7) year contract, because the TV rights and sponsorship rights of the Heineken cup without the English will be significantly reduced. at a minimum there will be no BT deal, and i am sure SKY's deal depends who is participating (their lawyers are no mugs, and they knew PRL and LNR had given notice to withdraw). And Heineken will pay zippo for a competition that doesnt involve its biggest market (remember they cant use the Heineken name in France).

So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.

[quote="quinsforever"]well if the French clubs do join ERC and the Heineken Cup, they are going to need a lot more than a one-off Eur2m payment over the length of a 5 (or 7) year contract, because the TV rights and sponsorship rights of the Heineken cup without the English will be significantly reduced. at a minimum there will be no BT deal, and i am sure SKY's deal depends who is participating (their lawyers are no mugs, and they knew PRL and LNR had given notice to withdraw). And Heineken will pay zippo for a competition that doesnt involve its biggest market (remember they cant use the Heineken name in France).

So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.[/quote]



Thought the ERC was dead  

Vive La ERC!! .................

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well if the French clubs do join ERC and the Heineken Cup, they are going to need a lot more than a one-off Eur2m payment over the length of a 5 (or 7) year contract, because the TV rights and sponsorship rights of the Heineken cup without the English will be significantly reduced. at a minimum there will be no BT deal, and i am sure SKY's deal depends who is participating (their lawyers are no mugs, and they knew PRL and LNR had given notice to withdraw). And Heineken will pay zippo for a competition that doesnt involve its biggest market (remember they cant use the Heineken name in France).

So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.[/b]

Thought the ERC was dead  

Vive La ERC!! .................

Do you not remember all the People on here telling us that the ERC WAS dead. Not might be, not probably was, not I think it is.

I'm not saying it will survive, but here we are a year on from those statements on here and still no ERC death.

it's not for the want of stabbin'.................................

mcladyboy thats a bit silly. if the ERC exists (which it does), and i say the ERC is dead, do i really need to include a disclaimer which makes it clear that this is a forward looking statement and just my opinion, and should not be taken as evidence of a profound disconnection with the real world?

so, just to be clear...

the ERC is dead  

quinsforever wrote:mcladyboy thats a bit silly. if the ERC exists (which it does), and i say the ERC is dead, do i really need to include a disclaimer which makes it clear that this is a forward looking statement and just my opinion, and should not be taken as evidence of a profound disconnection with the real world?

so, just to be clear...

the ERC is dead   

You were not here a year ago. The poster just above and another poster who is "currently on sabbatical" had multiple threads on the subject.

They were extremely tedious after a very short time and I probably only read 10% of them. The gist on one side was (after repeated probing) "the ERC is dead" There was no question that it was a fact not just an opinion.

Look it up if you can be arsed.

quinsforever wrote:

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

whats the difference between geoff999 and geoff998?

One is work the other is home - long story

quinsforever wrote:
So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.

I don't thing the ERC is important to them but what is important is a successful European tournament which we have had under the ERC umbrella and a determination any competition will not be run by the clubs.

If the stories are true that , already 4 teams are on the ERC/HC side of the fence this offer can only increase that.

What is often forgotten when the ERC are criticised about the size of the Sky deal is that when made there were no other big players in the game.
The difference now is their are two heavyweight in the ring - competition has caused the price to go up.

quinsforever wrote:well if the French clubs do join ERC and the Heineken Cup, they are going to need a lot more than a one-off Eur2m payment over the length of a 5 (or 7) year contract, because the TV rights and sponsorship rights of the Heineken cup without the English will be significantly reduced. at a minimum there will be no BT deal, and i am sure SKY's deal depends who is participating (their lawyers are no mugs, and they knew PRL and LNR had given notice to withdraw). And Heineken will pay zippo for a competition that doesnt involve its biggest market (remember they cant use the Heineken name in France).

So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.

They will also get the normal dividend for participating in the HCup if it is a one-off payment. 4 teams have already committed to the HCup (Toulon, Biarritz + 2 others according to reports).

Sky still have the broadcasting rights to the HCup in the UK. Are you trying to claim now that English viewers will only watch English teams?  

Camous, Lux & McGrath are no eejits I'd say  

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well if the French clubs do join ERC and the Heineken Cup, they are going to need a lot more than a one-off Eur2m payment over the length of a 5 (or 7) year contract, because the TV rights and sponsorship rights of the Heineken cup without the English will be significantly reduced. at a minimum there will be no BT deal, and i am sure SKY's deal depends who is participating (their lawyers are no mugs, and they knew PRL and LNR had given notice to withdraw). And Heineken will pay zippo for a competition that doesnt involve its biggest market (remember they cant use the Heineken name in France).

So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.

They will also get the normal dividend for participating in the HCup if it is a one-off payment. 4 teams have already committed to the HCup (Toulon, Biarritz + 2 others according to reports).

Sky still have the broadcasting rights to the HCup in the UK. Are you trying to claim now that English viewers will only watch English teams?  

Camous, Lux & McGrath are no eejits I'd say  

well its definitely the case that most english people who follow their own club team will not tune in to watch a HC without any english clubs in apart from maybe the SF and Final. how many irish would pay for SKY if there were no irish teams competing at all?

the point i was making re SKY is rather that the overall money for TV rights without the 12 PRL sides (in HC and Amln) will be significantly less. there is no way on this earth that SKy would enter into a contract to pay the same money if the English teams did not return to the ERC fold. Hence ERC monies to be distributed to the remaining 4 (or 5 w Fr) nations will be significantly reduced.

also dont forget SKY doesnt have a licence in france so sells on those rights to a domestic french broadcaster. so without english participation, the viewing audience will be completely hollowed out from sky's perspective, and i am sure what they pay for TV rights will reflect that.

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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

whats the difference between geoff999 and geoff998?

One is work the other is home - long story

gotcha. good to know its the same person!

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well if the French clubs do join ERC and the Heineken Cup, they are going to need a lot more than a one-off Eur2m payment over the length of a 5 (or 7) year contract, because the TV rights and sponsorship rights of the Heineken cup without the English will be significantly reduced. at a minimum there will be no BT deal, and i am sure SKY's deal depends who is participating (their lawyers are no mugs, and they knew PRL and LNR had given notice to withdraw). And Heineken will pay zippo for a competition that doesnt involve its biggest market (remember they cant use the Heineken name in France).

So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.

They will also get the normal dividend for participating in the HCup if it is a one-off payment. 4 teams have already committed to the HCup (Toulon, Biarritz + 2 others according to reports).

Sky still have the broadcasting rights to the HCup in the UK. Are you trying to claim now that English viewers will only watch English teams?  

Camous, Lux & McGrath are no eejits I'd say  

well its definitely the case that most english people who follow their own club team will not tune in to watch a HC without any english clubs in apart from maybe the SF and Final. how many irish would pay for SKY if there were no irish teams competing at all?

the point i was making re SKY is rather that the overall money for TV rights without the 12 PRL sides (in HC and Amln) will be significantly less. there is no way on this earth that SKy would enter into a contract to pay the same money if the English teams did not return to the ERC fold. Hence ERC monies to be distributed to the remaining 4 (or 5 w Fr) nations will be significantly reduced.

also dont forget SKY doesnt have a licence in france so sells on those rights to a domestic french broadcaster. so without english participation, the viewing audience will be completely hollowed out from sky's perspective, and i am sure what they pay for TV rights will reflect that.

Reduced more than the 24% (or 33%) from not having to pay any PRL teams?

The BT and SKY deal are going to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks.

Where PRL present at the meeting it was agreed to sell the H-cup rights (ERC say they were and agreed, and this was after serving notice)?
Did PRL even have the right to sell the English teams games (needs endorsed by RFU)?
How much is the BT deal worth?

With Sky and BT in a war over TV and Broadband, will this turn into a legal battle? or will they to come to an agreement?

Is there a risk the H-cup will go ahead but since BT and Sky are locked in a courtroom, that it will not be broadcast on either until the courtroom battle is over?

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well if the French clubs do join ERC and the Heineken Cup, they are going to need a lot more than a one-off Eur2m payment over the length of a 5 (or 7) year contract, because the TV rights and sponsorship rights of the Heineken cup without the English will be significantly reduced. at a minimum there will be no BT deal, and i am sure SKY's deal depends who is participating (their lawyers are no mugs, and they knew PRL and LNR had given notice to withdraw). And Heineken will pay zippo for a competition that doesnt involve its biggest market (remember they cant use the Heineken name in France).

So i think this is a desperate gambit by Camou, and when the french clubs stop to think about it, they will certainly be worse off financially over the course ofthe new ERC agreement from a diminished H Cup, even with a 1-off payment of Eur2m.

I have to admit i just dont understand why FFR are so wedded to ERC. JP Lux and McGrath have shown they are massively incompetent. massively. chuck the ERC under a bus and a deal might be doable. If Camou insists on the ERC, then this might well be the worse outcome of all for everyone.

They will also get the normal dividend for participating in the HCup if it is a one-off payment. 4 teams have already committed to the HCup (Toulon, Biarritz + 2 others according to reports).

Sky still have the broadcasting rights to the HCup in the UK. Are you trying to claim now that English viewers will only watch English teams?  

Camous, Lux & McGrath are no eejits I'd say  

well its definitely the case that most english people who follow their own club team will not tune in to watch a HC without any english clubs in apart from maybe the SF and Final. how many irish would pay for SKY if there were no irish teams competing at all?

the point i was making re SKY is rather that the overall money for TV rights without the 12 PRL sides (in HC and Amln) will be significantly less. there is no way on this earth that SKy would enter into a contract to pay the same money if the English teams did not return to the ERC fold. Hence ERC monies to be distributed to the remaining 4 (or 5 w Fr) nations will be significantly reduced.

also dont forget SKY doesnt have a licence in france so sells on those rights to a domestic french broadcaster. so without english participation, the viewing audience will be completely hollowed out from sky's perspective, and i am sure what they pay for TV rights will reflect that.

Last weekend of the Heineken Cup UK viewing figures Sky Sports:
Clermont v Quins = 187K
Leinster v Castres = 171K
Cardiff v Toulon = 151K
Northampton v Ospreys = 146K
Munster v Gloucester = 133K

Saracens v Toulouse = 174K

When you see that LeinsterVCastres & the CardiffVToulon figures, there would seem to be a fair bit of interest in the Celtic teams in the UK.

France have always done their own deal with Canal+ which isn't a problem for Sky (probably suits them becuase they don't have to worry about the HCup stuff branding).

BTW, is this the same BT that has just paid £900million for the UEFA Champions League?

And have they already began to rework their designs for 'free' sport because of it?

Owen Gibson, writing in The Guardian, says this:

"BT has said it will use the free-to-air (UEFA) games (only some) to drive subscribers to its sports channels and has already revealed it will have to alter its strategy of giving away BT Sport to its broadband customers to pay for the new rights."

So...does this mean that even the 'free' stuff that was the initial selling point in making BT more attractive to customers than Sky, is about to be revised and priced...just a few months in to AP coverage?  Would rugby fans feel they were being mucked around if the 'free' almost instantly becomes a 'fee'?

someone was always going to have to pay for it SF, and it usually ends up being us punters...

no such thing as a free lunch...

FFR are offering the French clubs 2 million euro each to stay in the HC.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/2013/1111/485986-heineken-cup-france-offer/

SecretFly wrote:BTW, is this the same BT that has just paid £900million for the UEFA Champions League?

And have they already began to rework their designs for 'free' sport because of it?

Owen Gibson, writing in The Guardian, says this:

"BT has said it will use the free-to-air (UEFA) games (only some) to drive subscribers to its sports channels and has already revealed it will have to alter its strategy of giving away BT Sport to its broadband customers to pay for the new rights."

So...does this mean that even the 'free' stuff that was the initial selling point in making BT more attractive to customers than Sky, is about to be revised and priced...just a few months in to AP coverage?  Would rugby fans feel they were being mucked around if the 'free' almost instantly becomes a 'fee'?

I don't think the BT deal for the Champions League comes into effect for another couple of years, so I would think that BT will continue with "free" coverage for as long as possible up to then to get as many punters on board, for example I imagine there will be a big push just before the CL starts to get you to sign up before the new prices kick in.

Apart from our own interest in rugby the actual business mechanics of this are fascinating and it will be interesting to see Skys next move in the game. Only thing is that sooner or later us punters will pay for it.

quinsforever wrote:someone was always going to have to pay for it SF, and it usually ends up being us punters...

no such thing as a free lunch...

I know that.... you know that...the dog on the street knows that...but that's not the arguments that have been used here to high step BT morally above the dark and devious SKY.  
BT were painted as the white hatter cowboys in the dirty range war to get more 'domestic' fans in 'offices' watching rugby.  If I remember correctly, that was one particularly funny episode in this long standing debate....  the office guys who wouldn't watch rugby but are enjoying it now that it's free.

Pierre Camou reputedly ready to offer French clubs €2 million to play in HC
President of FFR is meeting Anglo-French clubs’ drive for a Rugby Champions Cup head on

Gerry Thornley
Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 01:00

First published: Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 01:00
In the latest development in the ongoing impasse over the future of European club rugby, the President of the French Federation (FFR), Pierre Camou, is reputedly ready to offer French clubs €2 million apiece for participating in the Heineken Cup next season.

Not only is Camou refusing to wilt in his opposition to the proposed Anglo-French breakaway competition, he is also remaining true to his work in supporting the ERC and the President of the FFR is thus prepared to meet the Anglo-French clubs’ drive for a Rugby Champions Cup head on.

According to yesterday’s twice-weekly French rugby paper Midi Olimpique, the president of the FFR is ready to pledge compensation amounting to €2 million to French clubs willing to participate in an ERC-run pan-European tournament and, significantly, whether or not they are in the Top 14. Pierre Camou has even suggested the idea of offering players who want to compete in the European Cup federal contracts, which would have the same entitlements as the 40 players currently in the French squad for the November tests.

Raise the ante
Camou’s decision to raise the ante follows a secret meeting the FFR president and representatives of the English and French clubs had last Tuesday in a lounge of the Roissy Charles De Gaulle airport. At this meeting, Camou re-affirmed his commitment to respect French law, making it clear to those present that the next edition of the European Cup could be contested only under the aegis of the ERC, even though the LNR and PRL is insisting that its clubs will not participate in a European competition organized by the ERC.

Under French law, French clubs are not permitted to take part in any cross-border competition without the approval of the FFR and, by extension, the French government. If Camou sticks to his guns, and he is clearly not for budging, then the only way the French clubs could participate in the proposed Champions Cup would be taking the FFR and the French government to court. Apparently, his position has not changed one iota and he is not going to talk publicly any more on the subject.

Meanwhile the LNR President Paul Goze remains at loggerheads with Camou, and repeatedly tells any French reporter minded to listen that “the ERC is over.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/pierre-camou-reputedly-ready-to-offer-french-clubs-2-million-to-play-in-hc-1.1591436

I posted this above Sin or an RTE link to it at least.  

I emphasised at an earlier point in this that the LNR was not united in supporting the PRL and new competition.  This definitely now seems to be the case with Toulon, Biarittz and Bayonne all reportedly backing the FFR on its offer of 2 million euro for each Top 14 club and the continuation of the HC under the control of the ERC.  Its also telling that the FFR is using increasingly strong language in communicating to the LNR that they cannot form this new competition with the PRL.

The last sentence in the article posted by Sin sums up the PRL and LNR in all of this.  The line "ERC is dead." or "HC is over." is seemingly all they have been able to offer up for months now.  Realistically it must be starting to dawn on them that their plans for this new tournament are looking almost certainly to be up in smoke.  My money says the FFR are going to deliver the fatal blow to the PRL and LNR, but they are trying to keep the Top 14 clubs on board offering them this money and central contracts.  The plan being that most of the Top14 clubs will support this (several already have)  and things will remain amicable.

SecretFly wrote:BTW, is this the same BT that has just paid £900million for the UEFA Champions League?

And have they already began to rework their designs for 'free' sport because of it?

Owen Gibson, writing in The Guardian, says this:

"BT has said it will use the free-to-air (UEFA) games (only some) to drive subscribers to its sports channels and has already revealed it will have to alter its strategy of giving away BT Sport to its broadband customers to pay for the new rights."

So...does this mean that even the 'free' stuff that was the initial selling point in making BT more attractive to customers than Sky, is about to be revised and priced...just a few months in to AP coverage?  Would rugby fans feel they were being mucked around if the 'free' almost instantly becomes a 'fee'?

It was always said that it wasn't going to be free forever and as the Champions League rights don't kick in for another couple of years.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:someone was always going to have to pay for it SF, and it usually ends up being us punters...

no such thing as a free lunch...

I know that.... you know that...the dog on the street knows that...but that's not the arguments that have been used here to high step BT morally above the dark and devious SKY.  
BT were painted as the white hatter cowboys in the dirty range war to get more 'domestic' fans in 'offices' watching rugby.  If I remember correctly, that was one particularly funny episode in this long standing debate....  the office guys who wouldn't watch rugby but are enjoying it now that it's free.

I think most people were happy there was actually some competition in this space as Sky have had it's own way for too long.

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:someone was always going to have to pay for it SF, and it usually ends up being us punters...

no such thing as a free lunch...

I know that.... you know that...the dog on the street knows that...but that's not the arguments that have been used here to high step BT morally above the dark and devious SKY.  
BT were painted as the white hatter cowboys in the dirty range war to get more 'domestic' fans in 'offices' watching rugby.  If I remember correctly, that was one particularly funny episode in this long standing debate....  the office guys who wouldn't watch rugby but are enjoying it now that it's free.

I think most people were happy there was actually some competition in this space as Sky have had it's own way for too long.

You're not following my line of reasoning.
Sport needs to be paid for - the customer will always pay.  That we all agree on.  I repeat, had you listened to all the chat here, you might have had a dfferent perception of what people thought on the subject - ie, some openly said - free service = good guys; SKY = bad.

BUT...to get back to the agreement between all of us that sport must be paid for and that customers, however long it's delayed, will pay.


Now - you said people liked that there was finally competition for SKY.

What competition?  BT are simply coming to these events and paying massively over the price required to purchase the products they are purchasing.  The terrestrial channels simply can't afford to compete with BT.  And SKY, to date, seems much too wise to try to compete with BT.  So where is the competition?  The BT sport might be 'free' now for customers but BT aren't in the long term making sport any cheaper for the spectator to enjoy.  They've by themselves, under no pressure, inflated the price of the products they've purchased above the market value of those products - simply to push all competitors rapidly out of the market.

Now, the good bit.  Because they've paid so much for the product, they've admitted the customer will finally have to pay for it.  You and others here, including me, say fine - nobody believes you get anything for free.  Correct, you don't.  
But when BT say people are going to have to pay for the service they bought at twice the going rate, that means eventually -and quicker than people might think - the customers are going to have to pay above the price structure that they were complaining about with SKY.

If you're a car dealer dealing in Mercs - the customers pay you the full factory price and your profit margin for that car.  They don't insist on paying you only the price of a Toyota Yaris.  If you pay for a product from a factory - the customer pays you the full whack and more back.  BT are paying more for sport, the customer will end up paying more - more than SKY.

Who will be wearing the black hat in three or four years time in the minds of office workers who don't want to pay for sport?  SKY or BT?  It's a circle and everytme it revolves, sport gets more money thrown at it.  And the poor fan seems oblivious to the relationship between more money in the pockets of players, managers, chief execs and sponsors and less money in their (the fans) pockets trying to sustain the crazy inflation.

SF i think you possibly are missing the key concerns with Monopoly's and especially ones within the media.

Yes I get your point that you feel ultimately we will end up paying more - however you are missing the reality of the situation which is - its not about picking sky or BT for just your TV anymore.

Its about buying a package.

Every single year I bounce sky and virgin off one another like an auction. Yes I allways get the full package so I am in a decent bargaining position, but I allways get a discount by either sticking or switching.. BT has now got involved - and they clearly felt as though they had to because of this situation.

BT was all about communications(Broadband, phone line , etc) but then Sky started offering BB for next to nothing, and virgin was the first into the fiber optic game..

The way things are going I am going to be able to auction my custom off to 3 different firms - rather than 2.

So yes if you go out there and just individually buy virgin BB, sky tv and BT sport seperate you will pay through the nose.

If however you just stick with one- you will save drastically.

The other point is that BBC shouldn't be wasting money on sports any more-So I am happy they are pushed out of the market.They should be sticking with what they are best at and spending more on quality drama/comedy/news and documentary's.

mystiroakey wrote:SF i think you possibly are missing the key concerns with Monopoly's and especially ones within the media.

Yes I get your point that you feel ultimately we will end up paying more - however you are missing the reality of the situation which is - its not about picking sky or BT for just your TV anymore.

Its about buying a package.

Every single year I bounce sky and virgin off one another like an auction. Yes I allways get the full package so I am in a decent bargaining position, but I allways get a discount by either sticking or switching.. BT has now got involved - and they clearly felt as though they had to because of this situation.

BT was all about communications(Broadband, phone line , etc) but then Sky started offering BB for next to nothing, and virgin was the first into the fiber optic game..

The way things are going I am going to be able to auction my custom off to 3 different firms - rather than 2.

So yes if you go out there and just individually buy virgin BB, sky tv and BT sport seperate you will pay through the nose.

If however you just stick with one- you will save drastically.

The other point is that BBC shouldn't be wasting money on sports any more-So I am happy they are pushed out of the market.They should be sticking with what they are best at and spending more on quality drama/comedy/news and documentary's.

Customer bargaining capacity might be the god of a competitive environment but the people selling you stuff, or attempting to sell you stuff, still bought the stuff they are trying to sell.  They need to make a profit or they are broke.  If you bargain between BT and SKY on a monthly basis or what have you, I'd suggest that has nothing to do with the point that BT (not SKY) have the rights to something you want to watch - they've paid for that something - mucho bucks for that something; and someone somewhere is going to have to pay for that.

They don't care (or can't control might be more accurate) what broadband service you purchase - but they can control access to the something they bought.  If you think the something too expensive, you take your custom elsewhere.  What does that mean?
Well, it means two things:
One - you are one less customer, so the price of the something to their customers just went up.  Less customers take the strain or company goes broke.
Two - you are one less person watching their expensive something.  Therefore, sponsors pay less for the time between the something because they judge how many people are watching the expensive something before paying something expensive themselves.  And that means that the customer takes the strain twice or the company goes broke.

So they need your custom to make the sports pay for itself but if you do a shopping around thing and SKY invitingly offer you a better deal (and they'll be able to afford to, now that they know BT have larger bills to pay ) then eventually the BT hefty bill is going to have to fall on fewer customers, not more of them.  
I don't care how big BT is, its areas of interest must be viable.  Someone must pay for what they have purchased at way above market value.
And in all spheres, the increase in competitiveness is just the first stages in a new war of mergers and take overs as the more companies involved in a certain product, the less of them are realistically making a profit as they are all trying to undercut each other as their debts rise.

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:someone was always going to have to pay for it SF, and it usually ends up being us punters...

no such thing as a free lunch...

I know that.... you know that...the dog on the street knows that...but that's not the arguments that have been used here to high step BT morally above the dark and devious SKY.  
BT were painted as the white hatter cowboys in the dirty range war to get more 'domestic' fans in 'offices' watching rugby.  If I remember correctly, that was one particularly funny episode in this long standing debate....  the office guys who wouldn't watch rugby but are enjoying it now that it's free.

I think most people were happy there was actually some competition in this space as Sky have had it's own way for too long.

You're not following my line of reasoning.
Sport needs to be paid for - the customer will always pay.  That we all agree on.  I repeat, had you listened to all the chat here, you might have had a dfferent perception of what people thought on the subject - ie, some openly said - free service = good guys; SKY = bad.

BUT...to get back to the agreement between all of us that sport must be paid for and that customers, however long it's delayed, will pay.


Now - you said people liked that there was finally competition for SKY.

What competition?  BT are simply coming to these events and paying massively over the price required to purchase the products they are purchasing.  The terrestrial channels simply can't afford to compete with BT.  And SKY, to date, seems much too wise to try to compete with BT.  So where is the competition?  The BT sport might be 'free' now for customers but BT aren't in the long term making sport any cheaper for the spectator to enjoy.  They've by themselves, under no pressure, inflated the price of the products they've purchased above the market value of those products - simply to push all competitors rapidly out of the market.

Now, the good bit.  Because they've paid so much for the product, they've admitted the customer will finally have to pay for it.  You and others here, including me, say fine - nobody believes you get anything for free.  Correct, you don't.  
But when BT say people are going to have to pay for the service they bought at twice the going rate, that means eventually -and quicker than people might think - the customers are going to have to pay above the price structure that they were complaining about with SKY.

If you're a car dealer dealing in Mercs - the customers pay you the full factory price and your profit margin for that car.  They don't insist on paying you only the price of a Toyota Yaris.  If you pay for a product from a factory - the customer pays you the full whack and more back.  BT are paying more for sport, the customer will end up paying more - more than SKY.

Who will be wearing the black hat in three or four years time in the minds of office workers who don't want to pay for sport?  SKY or BT?  It's a circle and everytme it revolves, sport gets more money thrown at it.  And the poor fan seems oblivious to the relationship between more money in the pockets of players, managers, chief execs and sponsors and less money in their (the fans) pockets trying to sustain the crazy inflation.

But thats the thing though, who said BT are massively overpaying? You? Sky? Mr Bean? Who's to say Sky wasn't massively underpaying and that would of continued without competition that BT provided. The fact SKY offered £800m before being outbid by BT's £900m would suggest BT arent massively overpaying and SKY were before hand. Certainly not twice the going rate as you put it.

Again, you stating market value, who sets the price for the market value? Sky? ..of course not.

Your example of cars is floored. If you buy some extras for the car i.e leather seats, the dealer may knock some of the price from the actually car to close the deal. This is likely to what we'll see with BT vs SKy as this isn't just about TV, it's about broadband and phone too.

You mentioned that people are saying SKy are evil and the BT is good because it's free, i haven't read much of that. What i have read though is that BT are bad due to the HC.

[/quote]But thats the thing though, who said BT are massively overpaying? You? Sky? Mr Bean? Who's to say Sky wasn't massively underpaying and that would of continued without competition that BT provided. The fact SKY offered £800m before being outbid by BT's £900m would suggest BT arent massively overpaying and SKY were before hand. Certainly not twice the going rate as you put it.

Again, you stating market value, who sets the price for the market value? Sky? ..of course not.

Your example of cars is floored. If you buy some extras for the car i.e leather seats, the dealer may knock some of the price from the actually car to close the deal. This is likely to what we'll see with BT vs SKy as this isn't just about TV, it's about broadband and phone too.

You mentioned that people are saying SKy are evil and the BT is good because it's free, i haven't read much of that. What i have read though is that BT are bad due to the HC.[/quote]

I think it was SKY that stated BT has paid near twice the value. It really doesn't matter how much SKY were prepared to pay because the amount they were prepared to pay doesn't necessarily reflect the actual value of the competition to them, but perhaps the long term value of fending off another competitor. It could be that the £800m was a break even bid. None of this matters though. What matters is that BT paid a massive amount over any previous deal, and it follows that the customer will have to pay for a competition that has almost doubled in cost. Can BT now provide this service without charging more than SKY?

Just because BT are being reported as paying twice as much Sky does not mean Sky were under paying in the past.

All they did was bid enough to beat off the competition - ESPN Europe, Setanta and ITV all small fry. Why would they do more
The difference here is there is now another heavyweight in contention.

Competition is what has forced the price up not underselling in the past

As Sky missed out on the Champions League, presumably they have more in the kitty to spend on the HC?

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:SF i think you possibly are missing the key concerns with Monopoly's and especially ones within the media.

Yes I get your point that you feel ultimately we will end up paying more - however you are missing the reality of the situation which is - its not about picking sky or BT for just your TV anymore.

Its about buying a package.

Every single year I bounce sky and virgin off one another like an auction. Yes I allways get the full package so I am in a decent bargaining position, but I allways get a discount by either sticking or switching.. BT has now got involved - and they clearly felt as though they had to because of this situation.

BT was all about communications(Broadband, phone line , etc) but then Sky started offering BB for next to nothing, and virgin was the first into the fiber optic game..

The way things are going I am going to be able to auction my custom off to 3 different firms - rather than 2.

So yes if you go out there and just individually buy virgin BB, sky tv and BT sport seperate you will pay through the nose.

If however you just stick with one- you will save drastically.

The other point is that BBC shouldn't be wasting money on sports any more-So I am happy they are pushed out of the market.They should be sticking with what they are best at and spending more on quality drama/comedy/news and documentary's.

Customer bargaining capacity might be the god of a competitive environment but the people selling you stuff, or attempting to sell you stuff, still bought the stuff they are trying to sell.  They need to make a profit or they are broke.  If you bargain between BT and SKY on a monthly basis or what have you, I'd suggest that has nothing to do with the point that BT (not SKY) have the rights to something you want to watch - they've paid for that something - mucho bucks for that something; and someone somewhere is going to have to pay for that.

They don't care (or can't control might be more accurate) what broadband service you purchase - but they can control access to the something they bought.  If you think the something too expensive, you take your custom elsewhere.  What does that mean?
Well, it means two things:
One - you are one less customer, so the price of the something to their customers just went up.  Less customers take the strain or company goes broke.
Two - you are one less person watching their expensive something.  Therefore, sponsors pay less for the time between the something because they judge how many people are watching the expensive something before paying something expensive themselves.  And that means that the customer takes the strain twice or the company goes broke.

So they need your custom to make the sports pay for itself but if you do a shopping around thing and SKY invitingly offer you a better deal (and they'll be able to afford to, now that they know BT have larger bills to pay ) then eventually the BT hefty bill is going to have to fall on fewer customers, not more of them.  
I don't care how big BT is, its areas of interest must be viable.  Someone must pay for what they have purchased at way above market value.
And in all spheres, the increase in competitiveness is just the first stages in a new war of mergers and take overs as the more companies involved in a certain product, the less of them are realistically making a profit as they are all trying to undercut each other as their debts rise.

The only long term way of getting good deals for customers is to have valid competition.

It is about reducing profits, . Sky at the moment have a virtual monopoly and are making easy profits. Now they have been called out by BT. Long live a free market, thats all i can say.

However to keep spending on sports down and to stop an effective cartel happening(which i am sure does anyway of the record between virgin and sky at the moment). We need a couple of package rules IMO.

Sports packages have to have the option to have all the sports channels would be one IMO. So we would never have to pay two providers..(basically we cant have one proviuder paying 1 bill for something and then only showing in it on there hardware  and for there contract customers)

BUt then this is all pretty fruitless isnt it.

As PAYW is surely the future.

All we need is the infrastructure in our houses or persons(think about your sky/bt/virgin box like an unlocked phone- that can access anything it wants) And then If we want to watch a rugby game or a football match , everyone can, but then we are just billed month end or at the time.

Obviously this needs to become cost effective- but this is surely the future.

nathan wrote:
But thats the thing though, who said BT are massively overpaying? You? Sky? Mr Bean? Who's to say Sky wasn't massively underpaying and that would of continued without competition that BT provided. The fact SKY offered £800m before being outbid by BT's £900m would suggest BT arent massively overpaying and SKY were before hand. Certainly not twice the going rate as you put it.

Again, you stating market value, who sets the price for the market value? Sky? ..of course not.

Your example of cars is floored. If you buy some extras for the car i.e leather seats, the dealer may knock some of the price from the actually car to close the deal. This is likely to what we'll see with BT vs SKy as this isn't just about TV, it's about broadband and phone too.

You mentioned that people are saying SKy are evil and the BT is good because it's free, i haven't read much of that. What i have read though is that BT are bad due to the HC.

Highlighted comments in turn:

1. 'Competitive' environment in which competitors can't compete.  It's your words for SKY I'm repeating.  
Football values itself - that's not its value.  Its value is the price it can ask without bankrupting the payer.  I'm suggesting that BT is throwing around big money with the abandonment of some of Thatcher's famous teenage whizz-kid stockbrokers in the good old days of Spandau Ballet haircuts  
Of course football will take it, and rugby too if it can get it - but it's still a bill that has to be paid by the willing.  And as we're learning rapidly from these debates here - fans aren't willing to fork out big money for the privilege of watching sport.  Either that - or else the people here who claimed so were ...being untruthful

2. I know some of those dealers... I know a lot of them have been trying to do business that way in the downturned world economy and have found out to their surprise that "nope - doesn't matter how many cars you sell at a discount, the numbers aren't adding up - you're making a loss" - and they've gone broke.  In real terms - not in discussionary terms.

3. If you haven't heard much of that - you haven't been much around these parts and threads.  And yes, BT is the bad boy - not because they are a broadcasting outfit trying to get into European rugby.  Because they used PRL as their agent.  That meant there was no honest broker about their approach to other participants in any European competition. They were coming with a specified ally - who had specific structural demands.  Had they (BT) wanted a European competition, they should have negotiated alone with all of us, without PRL holding their hand.

BT and SKY mean nothing to me. One is as good or as bad as the other. The deceitful way they injected themselves into the European rugby debate (using a participating front man with a chip on its shoulder) makes me dislike BTs methodology in this instance.

[quote="mystiroakey"The only long term way of getting good deals for customers is to have valid competition.

It is about reducing profits, . Sky at the moment have a virtual monopoly and are making easy profits. Now they have been called out by BT. Long live a free market, thats all i can say.

However to keep spending on sports down and to stop an effective cartel happening(which i am sure does anyway of the record between virgin and sky at the moment). We need a couple of package rules IMO.

Sports packages have to have the option to have all the sports channels would be one IMO. So we would never have to pay two providers..(basically we cant have one proviuder paying 1 bill for something and then only showing in it on there hardware  and for there contract customers)

BUt then this is all pretty fruitless isnt it.

As PAYW is surely the future.

All we need is the infrastructure in our houses or persons(think about your sky/bt/virgin box like an unlocked phone- that can access anything it wants) And then If we want to watch a rugby game or a football match , everyone can, but then we are just billed month end or at the time.

Obviously this needs to become cost effective- but this is surely the future.[/quote]



We're talking about the 'here and now', not some time in the future, and in the 'here and now' SKY and BT are not engaged in a supermarket price war where customers have options for similar product. In this war the price of product will rise to cover costs, not lessen.

Sorry fly i cant quote on the horrid mobile version of this site. I also know a fair few salesman and its a tactic that's been used for years!

competitors can compete, I'm unsure how you think its worse of now than before when sky had everything.

do you think sky would of discounted broadband as much as they did if it wasn't for bt?

munchkin

in the long run value and quality will rise due to a competitive free market.

If that means this at the moment- some times we have to go backwards to go forwards

What does make me laugh is the nationalities of those saying bt is a bad idea compared to those who think its a good idea! Lol

I went to the carrabean last year , it was after the BP disaster and that was big news . There were south american and American networks in my hotel room.

The propaganda against the British due to the name of the firm being called British was astonishing!

Half the shareholders are American anyway. The majority of people cant see past a name..

Sky is owned by British Sky Broadcasting by the way. How would that name go down in Ireland?

mystiroakey wrote:munchkin

in the long run value and quality will rise due to a competitive free market.

If that means this at the moment- some  times we have to go backwards to go forwards

The 'here and now', mystir. One company (BT) has competed for, and won, the sole rights to sell one product. No viable alternative for customers to go elsewhere for that product. Free Market?

nathan wrote:Sorry fly i cant quote on the horrid mobile version of this site. I also know a fair few salesman and its a tactic that's been used for years!

competitors can compete, I'm unsure how you think its worse of now than before when sky had everything.

do you think sky would of discounted broadband as much as they did if it wasn't for bt?

I'm saying BT certainly aligned themselves with an outfit that wanted to 'discount' a competitor League within a European framework. That's what I'm saying. And that's BT involving themselves in that, not SKY.
So you might say I have a vested interest right now in not thinking too highly of the competitive credentials of BT.
But to go round again - I say paying too much for something simply to cut out any danger of competition is a return to the old values that dragged this world in a financial meltdown.
People forget easily - and we'll have more of them in the future.... meltdowns that is.

mystiroakey wrote:I went to the carrabean last year , it was after the BP disaster and that was big news . There were south american and American networks in my hotel room.

The propaganda against the British due to the name of the firm being called British was astonishing!

Half the shareholders are American anyway. The majority of people cant see past a name..

Sky is owned by British Sky Broadcasting by the way. How would that name go down in Ireland?

I think some of you have a persecution complex. Who is it that keeps dragging nationality into this?   Personally I couldn't care less which nationality the broadcaster is. What I care about is quality, and price.

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:munchkin

in the long run value and quality will rise due to a competitive free market.

If that means this at the moment- some  times we have to go backwards to go forwards

The 'here and now', mystir. One company (BT) has competed for, and won, the sole rights to sell one product. No viable alternative for customers to go elsewhere for that product. Free Market?

We have to first separate broadcasting rights as that isn't sky's or BTs fault- that is the sports bodies selling exclusive rights fault. Yes these company's will pay more for exclusivity- but that isn't the point!

However as i pointed out - We need to make sure that although the broadcasting is exclusive on many sports that we all have the option to get these channels through our provider- be it sky, BT or Virgin- which ion all honesty happens anyway.. ANd ionce BT are on a parallel with sky . Sky sports will have to come down at a price point and BT will have to go up on a price point

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I went to the carrabean last year , it was after the BP disaster and that was big news . There were south american and American networks in my hotel room.

The propaganda against the British due to the name of the firm being called British was astonishing!

Half the shareholders are American anyway. The majority of people cant see past a name..

Sky is owned by British Sky Broadcasting by the way. How would that name go down in Ireland?

I think some of you have a persecution complex. Who is it that keeps dragging nationality into this?   Personally I couldn't care less which nationality the broadcaster is. What I care about is quality, and price.

If you are talking to me, then you are wrong- However all i am doing is commenting on the victim perspective from other people and other posters on here.

There is clear fear factor about BT by certain Irish posters. And its clear that they are looking at certain issues that arnt relevant at all. Its business, and a free market is a good thing. Sky has killed to many others before, Its good to see BT stand up and give it a real go

nathan wrote:What does make me laugh is the nationalities of those saying bt is a bad idea compared to those who think its a good idea! Lol

Exactly...but I've always said why I don't like the idea of BT (purely business and purely the nature of the business they allegedly involved themselves in with PRL behind hidden doors, only to emerge with an apparent deal already done for European rugby - without the consent of all other participants in that competition!! - and the money part of a European deal also exclusively negotiated with but a single participating League alone.)  

So, I've always been honest that BT rubs me up all the wrong way in rugby terms because I feel they operated in a hidden and deceitful way.

Some on the other side (proBTers) are never so honest about why they like them though  

I hear market share, and loss leaders and choice,  and all that stuff - but the truth is some like BT because it's BT and PRL side by side on a power trip that sought to put English club rugby very much centre ground in the administration of the Rugby Union code itself in Europe.  So BT favouritism - and not remotely because of the name - is patriotism with a capital P.  BT/PRL is simply Team England.  One has to support one's team through thick and thin.  

But would anyody care to admit that?

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:munchkin

in the long run value and quality will rise due to a competitive free market.

If that means this at the moment- some  times we have to go backwards to go forwards

The 'here and now', mystir. One company (BT) has competed for, and won, the sole rights to sell one product. No viable alternative for customers to go elsewhere for that product. Free Market?

We have to first separate broadcasting rights  as that isn't sky's or BTs fault- that is the sports bodies selling exclusive rights fault. Yes these company's will pay more for exclusivity- but that isn't the point!

However as i pointed out - We need to make sure that although the broadcasting is exclusive on many sports that we all have the option to get these channels through our provider- be it sky, BT or Virgin- which ion all honesty happens anyway.. ANd ionce BT are on a parallel with sky . Sky sports will have to come down at a price point and BT will have to go up on a price point

Well I'm fairly certain BT and SKY would only bid such large sums on sole rights (they pay extra for the privilege). So in that sense it is their fault, and yes, if it is to the financial gain of whatever sports body to sell exclusive rights then that's what they will do. Maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal for them to do so, but until then it is very much the point.

Anywho....the RCC is dead. Long live the ERC!!!...... 

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:munchkin

in the long run value and quality will rise due to a competitive free market.

If that means this at the moment- some  times we have to go backwards to go forwards

The 'here and now', mystir. One company (BT) has competed for, and won, the sole rights to sell one product. No viable alternative for customers to go elsewhere for that product. Free Market?

We have to first separate broadcasting rights  as that isn't sky's or BTs fault- that is the sports bodies selling exclusive rights fault. Yes these company's will pay more for exclusivity- but that isn't the point!

However as i pointed out - We need to make sure that although the broadcasting is exclusive on many sports that we all have the option to get these channels through our provider- be it sky, BT or Virgin- which ion all honesty happens anyway.. ANd ionce BT are on a parallel with sky . Sky sports will have to come down at a price point and BT will have to go up on a price point

Well I'm fairly certain BT and SKY would only bid such large sums on sole rights (they pay extra for the privilege). So in that sense it is their fault, and yes, if it is to the financial gain of whatever sports body to sell exclusive rights then that's what they will do. Maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal for them to do so, but until then it is very much the point.

Anywho....the RCC is dead. Long live the ERC!!!...... 

Well what point are you trying to make then?

Its sky that has been doing this for so many years . NOT BT.

Why do so many posters think its ok for SKY but not others??

Secondly again. That is not Sky or BTS fault anyway. There are businesses. Again its the sporting bodies fault.

Or from your POV its the Governments fault for allowing broadcasters to bid for exclusivity.

Which is something I dont think anyone should get into. Because restricting business in this way could cause so many knock ons.

mystiroakey wrote:

There is clear fear factor about BT by certain Irish posters

I don't fear BT.  I certainly don't fear it because it was once British Telecom.  Its Britishness is irrelevant.  I regard SKY as pretty much British too so that's kinda way off the mark.  
BT aligned themselves and their money to a League company called PRL that tried and still tries to use BTs money as leverage to exert pressure on a competitor League - namely Pro12.  
PRL, too, tries to use BT money promises to leverage control of all future pan European club rugby competitions by demanding voting control over any new European body.

In business terms alone - that threatens Irish rugby.  So BT money - as it is handled by PRL, is not a godsend, it is a threat.  Are we clear on that?  

BT money on its own - without any structural renewal demands added to it by PRL - would have been welcome.  BT money with PRL demands attached - poor business.

BT is sponsoring many Rabbo teams dude?

Why are you looking at this with on one eye?

mystiroakey wrote:Well what point are you trying to make then?

Its sky that has been doing this for so many years . NOT BT.

Why do so many posters think its ok for SKY but not others??

Secondly again. That is not Sky or BTS fault anyway. There are businesses. Again its the sporting bodies fault.

Or from your POV its the Governments fault for allowing broadcasters to bid for exclusivity.

Which is something I dont think anyone should get into. Because restricting business in this way could cause so many knock ons.

I stated some time ago on this thread that I think SKY overcharges for its sports service. I don't know who the many posters are, but I'm not one of them.

I didn't say it was the Governments fault. It is what it is. You don't think allowing the big players to bid for exclusive rights restricts business?  

It's been fun, but I've chatted enough. Work to be done. Laters.

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:What does make me laugh is the nationalities of those saying bt is a bad idea compared to those who think its a good idea! Lol

Exactly...but I've always said why I don't like the idea of BT (purely business and purely the nature of the business they allegedly involved themselves in with PRL behind hidden doors, only to emerge with an apparent deal already done for European rugby - without the consent of all other participants in that competition!! - and the money part of a European deal also exclusively negotiated with but a single participating League alone.)  

So, I've always been honest that BT rubs me up all the wrong way in rugby terms because I feel they operated in a hidden and deceitful way.

Some on the other side (proBTers) are never so honest about why they like them though  

I hear market share, and loss leaders and choice,  and all that stuff - but the truth is some like BT because it's BT and PRL side by side on a power trip that sought to put English club rugby very much centre ground in the administration of the Rugby Union code itself in Europe.  So BT favouritism - and not remotely because of the name - is patriotism with a capital P.  BT/PRL is simply Team England.  One has to support one's team through thick and thin.  

But would anyody care to admit that?

Not true, some of us just want rugby to grow, and having two major broadcasters coming in will only strengthen any future European competition. However the other side has to be against england/prl/bt and see them as one group whatever the reality of the situation is.

The ERC should never have signed a SKY deal that included all ERC teams after the PRL had seeked out BT's deal.

That feicked it up just as much.

mystiroakey wrote:BT is sponsoring many Rabbo teams dude?

Why are you looking at this with on one eye?

BT is aligning itself with very much a competitor European league that has not got the best interests of Pro12 or participating Nations at heart.
You are looking at this with one eye.