FFR bribe their clubs to save the H-Cup

First topic message reminder :

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/2013/1111/485986-heineken-cup-france-offer/
I found this on RTE picking up on an article in Midi-Olympique

"French clubs have been offered €2 million each by the FFR to commit to playing in the Heineken Cup next season, according to reports in French media.

Pierre Camou, the Federation Francaise de Rugby president, is reported to have chaired a secret meeting at Paris’s Charles-de-Gaulle airport last week which was attended by representatives of the Top 14 clubs, as well as several of their English counterparts.

The claims were reported in French newspaper Midi Olympique.

The FFR chief is insistent that any European competition next season will continue to be governed by the European Rugby Cup.

Camou has been strongly opposed from outset of the announcement of plans for the Rugby Champions Cup.

According to Midi Olympique, the FFR is now ready to ensure that the ERC remains the only show in town 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 in contravention of existing French rugby laws.

When the plans for the RCC were first announced, the FFR were quick to warn the Ligue National de Rugby that they had no right to organise a competition without the direct consent of both the FFR and the International Rugby Board.

It is understood that Camou has support from several of the individual French clubs, including Toulon and Biarritz."

I'm surprised that they need to resort to bribery. Or that the FFR has €28 million to bribe them with. To me it smacks of desperation. This could work though.

as do PRL, RFU, LNR and FFR within ERC.

like i said, the italians will take whatever they are given. they contribute NOTHING financially hence their irrelevance to negotiations.

because, as i've said many times, its only ever about the money, and anyone who claims otherwise is actually saying its even more about the money.

sin, i'm telling you that you dont want to go down the champions league football path argument...

most of the money goes to clubs based on the value of TV rights sold into that market...and with BT paying top dollar for english club rugby, the rabo would get a fraction of the proposed 1/3 within RCC.

UEFA CL is run FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE CLUBS. that clear enough? none of the money goes into the pockets of the national football associations. none. even though it is ORGANISED and ADMINISTERED by UEFA.

Champions League would be a very bad model for celtic nations to base their claims for anything upon...

Do you understand that if the FFR get their way then the French will just get stronger? They will continue to take the top Welsh players and next will be the Irish.

It's part of the French effort to dominate European rugby.

The French have treated the English as if they are fools so far.

English clubs have taken all the risk and flack from deciding to break away from the ERC.

The biggest winners will be the French in any case despite taking no risks.

Pro12 anger should not be focussed upon English clubs. It is not English clubs who have a salary cap vastly above the Pro12. It is not the English clubs who don't take the HC seriously. It is not the English clubs who are taking most of the Welsh players.

quinsforever wrote:sin, i'm telling you that you dont want to go down the champions league football path argument...

most of the money goes to clubs based on the value of TV rights sold into that market...and with BT paying top dollar for english club rugby, the rabo would get a fraction of the proposed 1/3 within RCC.

UEFA CL is run FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE CLUBS. that clear enough? none of the money goes into the pockets of the national football associations. none. even though it is ORGANISED and ADMINISTERED by UEFA.

Champions League would be a very bad model for celtic nations to base their claims for anything upon...

Doesn't all the money from the Heineken Cup go to the clubs? It just happens that the Home Unions of Scotland, Ireland & Italy own 7 clubs between them.

Italy would do well out of the funds distribution if based on the Eufa model   And since Scotland, Wales & N Ireland are part of the UK, should share in the potential UK market.

beshocked wrote:Do you understand that if the FFR get their way then the French will just get stronger? They will continue to take the top Welsh players and next will be the Irish.

It's part of the French effort to dominate European rugby.

The French have treated the English as if they are fools so far.

English clubs have taken all the risk and flack from deciding to break away from the ERC.

The biggest winners will be the French in any case despite taking no risks.

Pro12 anger should not be focussed upon English clubs. It is not English clubs who have a salary cap vastly above the Pro12. It is not the English clubs who don't take the HC seriously. It is not the English clubs who are taking most of the Welsh players.

There you go.  Agree with pretty much all of that, beshocked - coz I is a reasonable man

It's just that I don't believe it's the FFR that will be responsible for all of that.  Or to put it another way, the RCC, as outlined by people like McCafferty and the LNR, won't stop that push for 'domination' of European rugby - their very plans together (PRL/LNR) serve to do the very same thing you've outlined above and even more robustly - only with the PRL plan, the English have joined themselves onto the runaway (player stealing) Top14 money train - rather than fight it, as they could have done.  With Pro12 as allies on that one rather than enemies.

Your highlighted sentence is a very important one...and I've been mentioning it over the months whenever I got a chance.  And behold, now an English poster mentions it without any prompting from me.

Those points you make are all valid.  

When I - and now you - talk about 'dominance', I personally know what I mean by that word.  I wouldn't attempt to claim I know what your interpretation of it is, but for me it means two of the top three rugby leagues in Europe are powergrabbing European level club rugby, and using acres of money to attempt it.  
The 'dominance' will come in a few levels: firstly voting control in any new pan-European body.  Meaning rules can be changed again and again into the future to dilute the influence of Pro12 and therefore too the Unions involved in that League.  The PRL/LNR partnership would rule the roost from within with happy scraps divided out to the 'making up the numbers' underlings.
The 'dominance' will also come with the relaxing of those 'caps' you mention - so that a level 'playing field' can be established with the bad boys of Top14.  But of course, that's a 'level playing field' only some will be able to achieve.  The rest will see this brand new level playing field of no salary caps drain the last of their players of any worth and, again, kill off one of the three leagues.
The 'dominance' will then, as a result of the other factors mentioned above, do what it is truly planned to do - and that is create a structural framework to European rugby that will heavily favour the big population density, big sponsorship getting, big player buying capacity top dog sides of both AP and Top14.  European competition will become the money making plaything of those 'elite' top five or six sides from each of those leagues.  The winners will be seasonally from those five or six top AP/Top14 sides.  And all will be right with the world as the SH players, that they'll stuff their sides with, will generate interest and loadsa even more money from increasing interest south of the Equator.

Lovely stuff for those few sides that would have stolen a competition and began to print money on the 'rights' afforded to them by the theft.

So, when you say it wasn't going to be like that.  The PRL/LNR plan was meant to keep European rugby safe for everyone. The PRL's plan was to control the bad French who want everything for themselves alone, I return it to you -

if you, as an English person, see those dangers so clearly,
if you, as an English man, can plot out the unfairness of the Top14 having no caps of any worth.
if you, as an Englishman, can say openly that the French are taking the English themselves for fools -

...WHY was none of those concerns presented by Mr McCafferty to the ERC itself?  Before the storm then, if he's not speaking to them now.  

WHY did he not publically voice concerns that rather than it being purely Pro12 structures that suppressed English clubs efforts in Europe, so too did this idea that one League should have endless lakes of money to buy up Europe's best players; and use those players to then go to European competition with virtual Harlem Globetrotter pay-to-order squads?  

WHY didn't and doesn't McCafferty see and declare it a wholely 'unfair advantage'?  WHY didn't be say that such an unequally constructed Europe (salary cap-wise) sees French sides easily lure best players from the other two Leagues?  WHY did McCafferty only see and declare evil in the Pro12 stuctures when the real big devil was sitting across the English channel?

So you say the English aren't like the French, that it is the French the Pro12 unions should be angry at.  I say the PRL readily aligned with, never criticised unfavourable aspects of, and wants to share in that very Top14 'dominance' you yourself openly and freely mention above.

Fight the good fight Fly....

Secret, It is a professional sport now and capping a sport to account for the weakest link financially has never been sustainable.

Top down structures in any walk of life do not have longevity because they are not diverse or flexible enough. You say the French and English are threatening the R12 but that is a centrally controlled cross border league, which is a last ditch attempt to retain an element of control. Some, perhaps many, would applaud that sentiment but ultimately it won't last.

You might not like it - perhaps I don't like it but the genie is out of the bottle.

The English clubs need to address the capital expenditure required for stadia.
The French clubs need to address the number of FQ players and a demanding salary cap.
The R12 need to make the league financially viable to address the current imbalance.
This is just the next stage in the development of the professional tier of the support

Sport.

Recwatcher wrote:Secret, It is a professional sport now and capping a sport to account for the weakest link financially has never been sustainable.

Top down structures in any walk of life do not have longevity because they are not diverse or flexible enough. You say the French and English are threatening the R12 but that is a centrally controlled cross border league,  which is a last ditch attempt to retain an element of control. Some, perhaps many, would applaud that sentiment but ultimately it won't last.

You might not like it - perhaps I don't like it but the genie is out of the bottle.

The English clubs need to address the capital expenditure required for stadia.
The French clubs need to address the number of FQ players and a demanding salary cap.
The R12 need to make the league financially viable to address the current imbalance.
This is just the next stage in the development of the professional tier of the support

But that's only agreeing with me, Rec... which I'm not against!!  But you're agreeing with me that Title/Cups/Competitions are now worthless in romantic terms in this professional age.  You're admitting that titles are now won by Power, influence, money, large population density and the 'unfair' advantages accruing to sides that can easily buy up any players they feel threatened by from lesser sides.

I know English Premiership football is ultra popular across the world.  To me - it's a desert - it's stale, it's repetitive, it's the same old coaching heads revolving around the same after game speeches revolving around the same circling shower of increasingly well paid players who continuously share the prizes amongst themselves each season because the bottom feeder 'competitors' even in the same leagues are not even designed to be winners.  They are designed by the processes of endless money streams for some sides to be eternal lap dogs...only there to make Leagues and European cups 'look' bigger, 'look' more full and vibrant', 'look' more competitive.

I find it all just a massive money making fraud - the Professional Football lark.  To see people here admit that rugby is inevitably gong to go that way and to see people here give their hearts to such a vacuous product, well, then so be it - I find it damn sad that people fall so readily for illusions of competitiveness and the affected romance of Manchester United winning yet another (money paid for it all folks) title.

I just don't see much of present day sport as - sport.  It's a show - a reality TV show, where things look real but are very much scripted.

Secretfly

Tell me what would you think would happen if the English did criticise the French?

The French are in a position when they can easily turn on the PRL. It's a lot more difficult for the PRL to do the same.

You think that the Pro12 teams would merrily support the English? No of course not.

I don't represent the PRL. I don't agree with everything they have done.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly

Tell me what would you think would happen if the English did criticise the French?

The French are in a position when they can easily turn on the PRL. It's a lot more difficult for the PRL to do the same.

You think that the Pro12 teams would merrily support the English? No of course not.

I don't represent the PRL. I don't agree with everything they have done.

How could the LNR turn on the PRL?  How could they make life difficult for the PRL?  The PRL ain't that small.  English rugby isn't so weak.

I say had the PRL asked for allies in taking down some of the more excessive abilities of French sides, especially within the context of a European competition (European competition capping system - players playing in it only coming in at a certain agreed level) they would have found ready allies in Pro12 pushing those proposals through - to 'level the playing field'.  You think Pro12 sides like having to meet these French super-teams any more than the AP sides do?

So they would have had allies, had they genuinely wanted to go down that route.  But the route is clear - they themselves (the PRL sides) don't want to be contrained by salary caps either, so French rugby was never going to be the 'enemy'.  
And yet you still say PRL were not the Pro12s enemy.  If they support the French in keeping all their benefits then how else could Pro12 parites look at it?
The PRL/LNR alliance are trying to instigate a much more 'unfair' structure to European rugby than the one they were complaining about initially as regards the Pro12.  So it's hypocrisy in my eyes.

I know all English people don't agree with everything the PRL are doing or how they chose to do it - I accept that.  But English people too must accept how they would look at PRL were they looking at the issue from outside England, were they themselves Irish or Scottish or Italian.  The sour taste would certainly be there.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly

Tell me what would you think would happen if the English did criticise the French?

The French are in a position when they can easily turn on the PRL. It's a lot more difficult for the PRL to do the same.

You think that the Pro12 teams would merrily support the English? No of course not.

I don't represent the PRL. I don't agree with everything they have done.

Yes, the French are in a position now where they can really hurt the PRL, but that wasn't always the case, beshocked. There may have been an opportunity for PRL to align themselves with the Rabo, and together try and weaken the French hold on European (Global?) rugby, but nope, the PRL decided to get into bed with LNR in a power grab against the Unions. However it's dressed up, that's exactly what it is.

Hopefully Camou scuppers their plans...

McCafferty caught out telling porkies again!

---
McCafferty insists debate over European club rugby is finished; new competition will start in 2014

Mark McCafferty, chief executive of Premiership Rugby, which represents the 12 teams in England’s top rugby union league, today insisted that there is no longer a debate about whether a new European club rugby competition will be up and running next season, with only the exact number of participants left to be decided.

Premiership Rugby and the LNR, the French league, have been working on a new breakaway top-tier European competition, known as the Rugby Champions Cup, to come into effect in the 2014-15 season, having grown impatient with the qualifying and commercial conditions in place for the existing Heineken Cup, which they believe benefit disproportionately the participants from Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy.

The four Welsh rugby union regions - Cardiff Blues, Newport Gwent Dragons, Ospreys and Scarlets – recently came out in support of the breakaway, and a representative of that group said today that they were willing to break from the Welsh Rugby Union if the governing body does not support the new competitions.

Talks are continuing to encourage teams from Ireland, Italy and Scotland, which along with Wales make up the existing Pro12 competition, to come on board, but a Rugby Champions Cup will kick off in 2014, regardless, McCafferty said.

Speaking at Rugby Expo in London today, McCafferty said: “It is sorted. Now it’s a question of which teams want to be a part of it. We have been in the implementation mode since September. Of course in parallel with that we will find ways to accommodate others’ needs. We have already made some concessions with the competition format but as far as the French, Welsh and English clubs are concerned, this is happening.

“With the English, French and Welsh clubs we have 30 of the 38 participants [already competing in European club rugby competitions] wanting to proceed on this new basis. It does not take much to tweak the competition format if needs be.”

Andrew Hore, Ospreys' chief executive, said: “There is no going back for us [the four Welsh regions]. We are committed to this.”

At a meeting in Dublin last month, European Rugby Cup, which organises the Heineken Cup and second-tier Amlin Challenge Cup, said that consensus had been reached among the stakeholders for a new structure for the two competitions from the start of the 2014-15 season.

Those proposals included a Heineken Cup of 20 teams, down from 24 at present, comprising six each from England’s Aviva Premiership and France’s Top 14 and seven from the Pro12 based on merit, but including at least one from each of those countries.

In the first year, the 20th place would be reserved for the winner of a play-off between the seventh-placed teams in the Premiership and the French Top 14 (McCafferty said today the scheduling of that play-off for May 2014 is already under discussion).

In the following years, the 20th qualifier would come through play-offs involving the seventh-place teams in the English and French leagues plus the two next non-qualified Pro12 teams.

It is envisaged that the second-tier competition would involve 20 teams, including the remaining 18 teams from the Premiership, Top 14 and Pro12 and two teams from a proposed new third-tier competition, aimed at boosting the sport in emerging countries.

As well as the format changes, it has been agreed that, in future, the revenues from the competitions will be split equally between the Premiership, LNR and the Pro12 but on the basis that the latter would not receive less than it does at present.

Premiership Rugby said it is pleased that progress was made at that Dublin meeting, which neither the league, the LNR nor the Welsh regions attended, but said that ERC would have no part to play in any future competition, with “governance” now the remaining key issue to be dealt with.

Dominic Hayes, commercial director of Premiership Rugby, told Sportcal today: “It was great that a couple of weeks ago in Dublin that meeting agreed the format that ourselves and the French cubs had put forward a year ago; two competitions of 20 teams.

“All that remains to be agreed is the principle of governance which is still up for discussion. But it’s important to understand these [new competition formats] were agreed under the context of a new European competition, not an existing one.”

Premiership Rugby’s position is empowered by a deal signed in September 2012 with UK telecoms giant BT, which has now launched new television sports channels, that purports to include domestic broadcast rights to matches involving English teams in European club competitions from 2014-15 onwards.

ERC immediately responded by announcing an extension of its rights deal with British Sky Broadcasting, the established pay-television operator.

Hayes continued: “Governance of Rugby Champions Cup cannot be under ERC. Their [TV] contract with Sky and ours with BT do not work together. Everyone is well aware that we were not part of ERC from 2014-15 onwards, that is no secret. We served notice on June 1 last year. Whatever ERC happened to be selling from 2014-15 onwards, it cannot have involved English clubs.”

McCafferty added: “Our clubs’ European games will be on BT Sport. It is as simple as that.”

McCafferty believes a solution is in sight but admitted that the final negotiations will be tough, noting: “We are at the stage where we could be close but it’s down to the last 10 per cent. But this 10 per cent of issues have 90-per-cent impact as far as most of the players in the debate are concerned.”

He said the Six Nations Council, the governing body for rugby union’s annual Six Nations Championship, had been approached about running the competition alongside the clubs, but that some of the members were not in favour of the proposal.

McCafferty added: “We need to agree a governance model with those unions that they, the leagues and the clubs find acceptable. A fourth proposal has gone on the table today. We feel like we have come up with solutions, but eventually you run out of road on that.

“It does not have to be everybody or nobody. We are pushing hard for a solution that involves everybody but we cannot force people into the competitions. If they don’t want to be in, they don’t want to be in. English, French and Welsh clubs will be.”

http://www.sportcal.com/news/

No wonder the Welsh players are all heading to France. There is going to be a split with the WRU and so Welsh Regions players won't be eligible to play for Wales. Its all beginning to make sense now with Gatland telling them that the Rabo isn't strong enough.

Sin é wrote:

No wonder the Welsh players are all heading to France. There is going to be a split with the  WRU and so Welsh Regions players won't be eligible to play for Wales. Its all beginning to make sense now with Gatland telling them that the Rabo isn't strong enough.

I like a good conspiracy theory as the next man but you are assuming that there is some kind of Keyser Söze pulling the strings in the WRU

whocares wrote:

Sin é wrote:

No wonder the Welsh players are all heading to France. There is going to be a split with the  WRU and so Welsh Regions players won't be eligible to play for Wales. Its all beginning to make sense now with Gatland telling them that the Rabo isn't strong enough.

I like a good conspiracy theory as the next man but you are assuming that there is some kind of Keyser Söze pulling the strings in the WRU

I was surprised that Davies signed for Clermont now - its very early to do so. For example, when Sexton went to Racing, the deal wasn't done until Feb. Lots of Irish players rumoured to be going to France and all are putting it off making a decision.

how is mccafferty telling porkies from the article you posted?

Sin é wrote:

whocares wrote:

Sin é wrote:

No wonder the Welsh players are all heading to France. There is going to be a split with the  WRU and so Welsh Regions players won't be eligible to play for Wales. Its all beginning to make sense now with Gatland telling them that the Rabo isn't strong enough.

I like a good conspiracy theory as the next man but you are assuming that there is some kind of Keyser Söze pulling the strings in the WRU

I was surprised that Davies signed for Clermont now - its very early to do so. For example, when Sexton went to Racing, the deal wasn't done until Feb. Lots of Irish players rumoured to be going to France and all are putting it off making a decision.

if the welsh regions get a guarantee of at least the same amount of money (i heard it was in fact a £600k per club annual increase) from RCC, then letting a few of the more expensive star players go overseas is sensible business. Especially as it means you wont have to accept Roger Lewis's blood money to keep them in exchange for signing a worse participation agreement than you had previously.

it's adapting to the new reality. roger lewis is painting himself into a bit of a tight spot here by having threatened central contracting - the clubs would rather see their star players go overseas and cut the wage bill significantly than hand over control of key players to WRu and get LESS money in return.

agree, the rule being that transfers in France cannot be announced before the end of the season. for some reasons there has been a lot of annoucements recently (including between french clubs) so seems that nobody gives a toss about it anymore or that maybe something else is happening. If warburton and halfpenny do eventually leave Wales (which I doubt) then it would be like a big alarm bell ringing. I also dont believe the likes of SOB or Heaslip will come here. those transfer lists are really meaningless (you had the likes of Dan Carter regularly appearing on them in the last few years)

This is going to go tips up at the last minute, with the FFR showing a stance unrivalled by anyone else.

If the LNR decide the FFR are a better option the PRL are left in the wilderness, they're only option will be to come back to the table tail between their legs and take a much reduced offer.

This is what happens when you go out on a limb, take all the risks for the benefit of the big boy to manipulate. Had the PRL looked at home first, instead of looking to piggy back the French or SA powers we would be in a far safer and stronger position.

This has done nothing positive for the sport in the NH!!!

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin, i'm telling you that you dont want to go down the champions league football path argument...

most of the money goes to clubs based on the value of TV rights sold into that market...and with BT paying top dollar for english club rugby, the rabo would get a fraction of the proposed 1/3 within RCC.

UEFA CL is run FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE CLUBS. that clear enough? none of the money goes into the pockets of the national football associations. none. even though it is ORGANISED and ADMINISTERED by UEFA.

Champions League would be a very bad model for celtic nations to base their claims for anything upon...

Doesn't all the money from the Heineken Cup go to the clubs? It just happens that the Home Unions of Scotland, Ireland & Italy own 7 clubs between them.

Italy would do well out of the funds distribution if based on the Eufa model   And since Scotland, Wales & N Ireland are part of the UK, should share in the potential UK market.

Actually the unions own a lot more than the 8 which play in the Rabo.

not a single country in european football owns their clubs that compete in the champions league. the unions get the money from the international game. clubs from the club game. no cross-subsidisation.

italy would do terribly out of the funds distribution if based on Uefa because its based on what the Tv rights can be sold for in each separate country. Not population which is i assume what you are pointing at without actually saying it.

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

Who is Head of BT?

Where is he?

Does he have an office?

Does he have a phone number?

Does he speak in public?

Again, Mr McCafferty doing all the talk for a broadcasting company at the centre of a storm.

Does McCafferty have a vested interest in BT above that of the PRL agreement for the domestic AP?  Is he on the BT board of directors?

Why is this man continuing to speak for a company that should have its own mouthpiece?

I have to say, I admire the stamina of you guys.

 

butterfingers wrote:This is going to go tips up at the last minute, with the FFR showing a stance unrivalled by anyone else.

If the LNR decide the FFR are a better option the PRL are left in the wilderness, they're only option will be to come back to the table tail between their legs and take a much reduced offer.

This is what happens when you go out on a limb, take all the risks for the benefit of the big boy to manipulate. Had the PRL looked at home first, instead of looking to piggy back the French or SA powers we would be in a far safer and stronger position.

This has done nothing positive for the sport in the NH!!!

you are dreaming if you think PRL will go back to the table. would love to know what you base that on?

you are also dreaming if you think the LNR are going to spread their buttcheeks for Camou.

If the LNR decline to play any european rugby next season, then the other unions will have no choice but to join the RCC because the hollowed-out shell that is the ERC, with semi-pro french teams playing, will make no money for anyone. And LNr will survive just fine, and Camou, once the other unions sign up to RCC, will be demonised then defenestrated.

quinsforever wrote:

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

Thanks quins.  A distinction between the 'traditional' niceties of calling us all the four 'Home' unions and the reality that we're two distinct Nations - Scotland will make it's own decisions on that later.  
But yes, it's a genuinely important distinction that I think got lost in the idea that somehow the PRL were almost seen to be the champion for all the 'home' union nations and people wondering why was not everyone happy that they had got so much money for a European Competition????  Afterall, it meant that France would only have six entries and the 'home' nations would have at least nine!  Win win!

If you think of yourself as a genuine 'home' nation.  It's a traditional name continually used, that's all.  Yes, UK can handle its rights how it sees fit.  Did BT approach the rest of us about ours though?

SecretFly wrote:Who is Head of BT?

Where is he?

Does he have an office?

Does he have a phone number?

Does he speak in public?

Again, Mr McCafferty doing all the talk for a broadcasting company at the centre of a storm.

Does McCafferty have a vested interest in BT above that of the PRL agreement for the domestic AP?  Is he on the BT board of directors?

Why is this man continuing to speak for a company that should have its own mouthpiece?

impressive wordsmithery this morning SF  

not sure mccafferty has been acting as mouthpiece for BT

its the "content" (RCC) that does the talking, the "medium" (BT/SKY) just delivers content from creator to consumer.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

Thanks quins.  A distinction between the 'traditional' niceties of calling us all the four 'Home' unions and the reality that we're two distinct Nations - Scotland will make it's own decisions on that later.  
But yes, it's a genuinely important distinction that I think got lost in the idea that somehow the PRL were almost seen to be the champion for all the 'home' union nations and people wondering why was not everyone happy that they had got so much money for a European Competition????  Afterall, it meant that France would only have six entries and the 'home' nations would have at least nine!  Win win!

If you think of yourself as a genuine 'home' nation.  It's a traditional name continually used, that's all.  Yes, UK can handle its rights how it sees fit.  Did BT approach the rest of us about ours though?

in the context of TV rights, its national boundaries that count, not "traditional" rugby definitions of home nations etc. And for Rabo, Wales even has its own BBC Alba deal i gather, separate from SKY, no? so even within the UK, TV rights can clearly be parcelled up. The Welsh Assembly made this possible i assume.

Cyril wrote:I have to say, I admire the stamina of you guys.

 

It's a meaty topic Cyril...just add salt to taste and you have a lovely meal that lasts you for hours.

Unlike some of the other topics... em, naming one:  The Strength in Depth one!!!  
Mercy me - now that's one that does need stamina!  
"Joe Bloggs junior"  "Joe f**kin' Bloggs is going to be your third choice hooker in 2015????  He's never even played Pro12 yet?"  "Okay, Jim O'Mahony"  "Jim O'schittin' O'Mahony????............."

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

Thanks quins.  A distinction between the 'traditional' niceties of calling us all the four 'Home' unions and the reality that we're two distinct Nations - Scotland will make it's own decisions on that later.  
But yes, it's a genuinely important distinction that I think got lost in the idea that somehow the PRL were almost seen to be the champion for all the 'home' union nations and people wondering why was not everyone happy that they had got so much money for a European Competition????  Afterall, it meant that France would only have six entries and the 'home' nations would have at least nine!  Win win!

If you think of yourself as a genuine 'home' nation.  It's a traditional name continually used, that's all.  Yes, UK can handle its rights how it sees fit.  Did BT approach the rest of us about ours though?

in the context of TV rights, its national boundaries that count, not "traditional" rugby definitions of home nations etc. And for Rabo, Wales even has its own BBC Alba deal i gather, separate from SKY, no? so even within the UK, TV rights can clearly be parcelled up. The Welsh Assembly made this possible i assume.

My post was making that clear, quins, in that you all as a group (UK) or individually as Unions (Wales, Scotland, England) can make your own arrangements on your own rights.  And we'll sell our own unique rights.  But has BT visited us??? Or does McCafferty have our rights already in an envelope in his wall safe, waiting for us to just come sign them and thank him for getting us such a good deal?

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin, i'm telling you that you dont want to go down the champions league football path argument...

most of the money goes to clubs based on the value of TV rights sold into that market...and with BT paying top dollar for english club rugby, the rabo would get a fraction of the proposed 1/3 within RCC.

UEFA CL is run FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE CLUBS. that clear enough? none of the money goes into the pockets of the national football associations. none. even though it is ORGANISED and ADMINISTERED by UEFA.

Champions League would be a very bad model for celtic nations to base their claims for anything upon...

Doesn't all the money from the Heineken Cup go to the clubs? It just happens that the Home Unions of Scotland, Ireland & Italy own 7 clubs between them.

Italy would do well out of the funds distribution if based on the Eufa model   And since Scotland, Wales & N Ireland are part of the UK, should share in the potential UK market.

Actually the unions own a lot more than the 8 which play in the Rabo.

not a single country in european football owns their clubs that compete in the champions league. the unions get the money from the international game. clubs from the club game. no cross-subsidisation.

italy would do terribly out of the funds distribution if based on Uefa because its based on what the Tv rights can be sold for in each separate country. Not population which is i assume what you are pointing at without actually saying it.

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

The clue is in the name as to who owns Benetton Treviso .  

Thats good to hear about how the funds distribution works. If Sky bid treble what BT have bid for the Irish rights, does that mean the IRFU will get 3 times what the PRL will get?

there's a big envelope for you SF once you sign up to RCC

or a much smaller one that you could use if you run out of toilet paper, waiting at ERC headquarters  

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin, i'm telling you that you dont want to go down the champions league football path argument...

most of the money goes to clubs based on the value of TV rights sold into that market...and with BT paying top dollar for english club rugby, the rabo would get a fraction of the proposed 1/3 within RCC.

UEFA CL is run FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE CLUBS. that clear enough? none of the money goes into the pockets of the national football associations. none. even though it is ORGANISED and ADMINISTERED by UEFA.

Champions League would be a very bad model for celtic nations to base their claims for anything upon...

Doesn't all the money from the Heineken Cup go to the clubs? It just happens that the Home Unions of Scotland, Ireland & Italy own 7 clubs between them.

Italy would do well out of the funds distribution if based on the Eufa model   And since Scotland, Wales & N Ireland are part of the UK, should share in the potential UK market.

Actually the unions own a lot more than the 8 which play in the Rabo.

not a single country in european football owns their clubs that compete in the champions league. the unions get the money from the international game. clubs from the club game. no cross-subsidisation.

italy would do terribly out of the funds distribution if based on Uefa because its based on what the Tv rights can be sold for in each separate country. Not population which is i assume what you are pointing at without actually saying it.

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

Didn't I get told recently that TV audiences increase significantly when English clubs play Welsh or Irish teams? Does that mean that potential viewership doesn't equate actual viewership and distribution?

Sin, none of us know what BT have bid for. The IRFU may well be able to go out and sell the rights themselves. I hope so. would be the fairest thing for everyone. Will tell us exectly how much TV rights are worth in each country. But like BT and PRL, the money from selling Irish TV rights will all go back into the central pot which is then divided out 1/3 per league as agreed.

and when that happens it will stop the pointless debate about who contributes how much, as we will have an external valuation for everyone individually.

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin, i'm telling you that you dont want to go down the champions league football path argument...

most of the money goes to clubs based on the value of TV rights sold into that market...and with BT paying top dollar for english club rugby, the rabo would get a fraction of the proposed 1/3 within RCC.

UEFA CL is run FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE CLUBS. that clear enough? none of the money goes into the pockets of the national football associations. none. even though it is ORGANISED and ADMINISTERED by UEFA.

Champions League would be a very bad model for celtic nations to base their claims for anything upon...

Doesn't all the money from the Heineken Cup go to the clubs? It just happens that the Home Unions of Scotland, Ireland & Italy own 7 clubs between them.

Italy would do well out of the funds distribution if based on the Eufa model   And since Scotland, Wales & N Ireland are part of the UK, should share in the potential UK market.

Actually the unions own a lot more than the 8 which play in the Rabo.

not a single country in european football owns their clubs that compete in the champions league. the unions get the money from the international game. clubs from the club game. no cross-subsidisation.

italy would do terribly out of the funds distribution if based on Uefa because its based on what the Tv rights can be sold for in each separate country. Not population which is i assume what you are pointing at without actually saying it.

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

Didn't I get told recently that TV audiences increase significantly when English clubs play Welsh or Irish teams? Does that mean that potential viewership doesn't equate actual viewership and distribution?

TV viewing figures are also a red herring. all that matters is what BT or SKY are willing to pay for the right to show particular matches in a particular country. the buck stops with the media distributor, not us on 606 poring over a single weekends BARB figures.

quinsforever wrote:Sin, none of us know what BT have bid for. The IRFU may well be able to go out and sell the rights themselves. I hope so. would be the fairest thing for everyone. Will tell us exectly how much TV rights are worth in each country. But like BT and PRL, the money from selling Irish TV rights will all go back into the central pot which is then divided out 1/3 per league as agreed.

and when that happens it will stop the pointless debate about who contributes how much, as we will have an external valuation for everyone individually.

We will have a false valuation, based on Sky & BT trying to get one over on each other. Totally unsustainable.

So the RRW are threatening to walk out on WRU if WRU don't agree to this RCC thingy...
Just when you think a big ladder is appropriate they get a bigger spade  

Maybe Roger Lewis is thinking 'Job done'....

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin, i'm telling you that you dont want to go down the champions league football path argument...

most of the money goes to clubs based on the value of TV rights sold into that market...and with BT paying top dollar for english club rugby, the rabo would get a fraction of the proposed 1/3 within RCC.

UEFA CL is run FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE CLUBS. that clear enough? none of the money goes into the pockets of the national football associations. none. even though it is ORGANISED and ADMINISTERED by UEFA.

Champions League would be a very bad model for celtic nations to base their claims for anything upon...

Doesn't all the money from the Heineken Cup go to the clubs? It just happens that the Home Unions of Scotland, Ireland & Italy own 7 clubs between them.

Italy would do well out of the funds distribution if based on the Eufa model   And since Scotland, Wales & N Ireland are part of the UK, should share in the potential UK market.

Actually the unions own a lot more than the 8 which play in the Rabo.

not a single country in european football owns their clubs that compete in the champions league. the unions get the money from the international game. clubs from the club game. no cross-subsidisation.

italy would do terribly out of the funds distribution if based on Uefa because its based on what the Tv rights can be sold for in each separate country. Not population which is i assume what you are pointing at without actually saying it.

Ireland are not part of the UK. Scotland dont want to be. I would be happy to share the TV rights between the english and welsh clubs, but obviously not equally. Ireland, Scotland and France can all go sell their own TV rights and good luck to everyone.

Didn't I get told recently that TV audiences increase significantly when English clubs play Welsh or Irish teams? Does that mean that potential viewership doesn't equate actual viewership and distribution?

TV viewing figures are also a red herring. all that matters is what BT or SKY are willing to pay for the right to show particular matches in a particular country. the buck stops with the media distributor, not us on 606 poring over a single weekends BARB figures.

Actually is it not the distribution of what the media outlet agree's to pay? If BT want the HC for X million, is it not the distribution values the PRL have the issue with, not the initial figure?

quinsforever wrote:Sin, none of us know what BT have bid for. The IRFU may well be able to go out and sell the rights themselves. I hope so. would be the fairest thing for everyone. Will tell us exectly how much TV rights are worth in each country. But like BT and PRL, the money from selling Irish TV rights will all go back into the central pot which is then divided out 1/3 per league as agreed.

and when that happens it will stop the pointless debate about who contributes how much, as we will have an external valuation for everyone individually.

So the English and French will make a birrah money too when Leinster win the next European competition again??  Ah okay I'll go along with that...but only as long as the guaranteed wins - (let's say 3 over the next five years, just not to be greedy )- are written on Mccafferty's contract that he has waiting for us in his safe compartment.

Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

Under lock, key and promises promises. The deal is you don't get to see the detail of what you've signed up to until you've signed up to it.

SecretFly wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

Under lock, key and promises promises.  The deal is you don't get to see the detail of what you've signed up to until you've signed up to it.

Why? If they want people to join them surely the best way is to show them how much better off they'd be! This secrecy sounds to me like there's not much to crow about otherwise they'd be shouting about this from the rooftops.

Sponsorship of McCafferty's Cup not looking good!

The “right to make decisions that affect their businesses” is key to the Welsh regions and Steve Martin from M & C Saatchi Sport & Entertainment appreciates fully the importance of that but insists that it is commercially imperative to find a resolution in the immediate future.

“At the moment brands are sponsoring things and looking at properties two or three years out and they are not making snap decisions, particularly with the scale of the money that we are talking about,” he said.

“The question I am always asked from a brand’s or a sponsor’s perspective is what sport should we be in and what are we going to back and the big concern that I would have is being able to recommend European rugby at the moment because it is in a bit of turmoil.

“Having sporting governance and the politics played out in public does no good to the sport. It makes it harder to attract sponsors.

“There isn’t a massive pot sitting at the end of the rainbow to sponsor every sport. Rugby has a terrific opportunity, don’t mess it up is all I would say.

“Get everything done right and get it done quickly before we are left in a sort of vacuum of nothing happening.”

McCafferty agrees that any solution is needed sooner rather than later – he even thought that one had been reached 10 days ago – but the door is closing inch by inch and he is imploring rugby as a whole to show ambition in order that it can realise its full potential in the global marketplace.

“As far as the French, Welsh and English clubs are concerned, we have now got to implement because we don’t have any time left. We have run out of road. There will be a playoff match for the final place scheduled for a weekend in May at the end of this season,” he said.

“The real danger for rugby is that it doesn’t ever fulfil its ultimate potential
“A Champions League final today will attract a TV audience of around 100 million. It competes these days as an annual sporting event alongside the Super Bowl and that is the kind of level of ambition that rugby needs to have.”

http://www.runningrugby.com/events/e...s-ever-closer/

I'd like to put that question to McCafferty actually.  And demand a straight answer fom him:  "Mr McCafferty, you came to rugby from a Travel company.  Mr McCafferty, when you get your weekend off and go home and close your front door on the world.......... what sport do you switch on to watch?"

The man is taking all his model talk from what football did.  He really does strike me as a football fanatic who can't knock the imagery of football out of his head when talking rugby.  Perhaps football needs his ambition more than rugby?  Afterall... the Champions League only gets a 100 million TV audience!!  With his ambition and skills I'm sure he could push it closer to 200 million.  The man is obsessed with numbers, figures and Profit Margin Championships.

Intotouch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

Under lock, key and promises promises.  The deal is you don't get to see the detail of what you've signed up to until you've signed up to it.

Why? If they want people to join them surely the best way is to show them how much better off they'd be! This secrecy sounds to me like there's not much to crow about otherwise they'd be shouting about this from the rooftops.

McCafferty and friends want to remain in absolute control of their new competition and European rugby as a whole that is why they have gone down this road of not negotiating.  In fact they are at pains to point out that they will not negotiate with Unions so how they can communicate to the teams represented by Unions  (Ireland, Scotland and Italy) what they will get out of the RCC I don't know.  There position from the word go is sign up to our new cup because its the best thing for rugby, but when it comes to any amount of detail about the financial breakdown of this new competition there is complete silence.  I agree with your estimation that a huge amount of what the PRL are banging on about is blulster, hype and simple rhetoric.  There is no identifiable substance behind their claims of this grand new vision for European rugby in the RCC.

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

doesnt compare well if its just a one-off payment in exchange for signing up to a new 7 year ERC participation agreement. Especially if the prl and wrr clubs don't sign up. net-net (depending how much less sky pay for the tv rights without prl clubs) they may well see an actual drop in income over the course of that 7 year deal.

as for the increase in money from RCC. quick back of envelope maths tells me that i) given that PRL have guaranteed the celtic unions no drop in revenue, and ii) the share of revenue is falling from 52% to 33%, that means iii) the prl and top14 revenue go from 24% each to 33% each of a pie which is 56% bigger overall....

so the revenue to prl and top14 increases by approx 52/24%= 117% increase. which in money terms is what, about £900k per club per annum increase? (cant remembers what current revs are but IIRC its close to £800 per premiership club).

thats an awful lot more than eur2m one-off payment.

quinsforever wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

doesnt compare well if its just a one-off payment in exchange for signing up to a new 7 year ERC participation agreement. Especially if the prl and wrr clubs don't sign up. net-net (depending how much less sky pay for the tv rights without prl clubs) they may well see an actual drop in income over the course of that 7 year deal.

as for the increase in money from RCC. quick back of envelope maths tells me that i) given that PRL have guaranteed the celtic unions no drop in revenue, and ii) the share of revenue is falling from 52% to 33%, that means iii) the prl and top14 revenue go from 24% each to 33% each of a pie which is 56% bigger overall....

so the revenue to prl and top14 increases by approx 52/24%= 117% increase. which in money terms is what, about £900k per club per annum increase? (cant remembers what current revs are but IIRC its close to £800 per premiership club).

thats an awful lot more than eur2m one-off payment.

Does anyone know for certain that this €2million is coming from SKY, or is this just more speculation?
If the LNR clubs accept the FFR/SKY? offer of €2million then surely that is on top of what they would naturally receive for HEC participation? The FFR Central Contracts are the big incentive here though that may push clubs into deciding 'non' for RCC.
Anywho...the clock is ticking for LNR. December 14 is just around the corner, and decisions will be made, and as that time draws closer the less likely any PRL/LNR RCC competition will be....

Edit: Dec 14 is when LNR are due to have their T14 licence renewed by FFR after already having it extended since June.

quinsforever wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

doesnt compare well if its just a one-off payment in exchange for signing up to a new 7 year ERC participation agreement. Especially if the prl and wrr clubs don't sign up. net-net (depending how much less sky pay for the tv rights without prl clubs) they may well see an actual drop in income over the course of that 7 year deal.

as for the increase in money from RCC. quick back of envelope maths tells me that i) given that PRL have guaranteed the celtic unions no drop in revenue, and ii) the share of revenue is falling from 52% to 33%, that means iii) the prl and top14 revenue go from 24% each to 33% each of a pie which is 56% bigger overall....

so the revenue to prl and top14 increases by approx 52/24%= 117% increase. which in money terms is what, about £900k per club per annum increase? (cant remembers what current revs are but IIRC its close to £800 per premiership club).

thats an awful lot more than eur2m one-off payment.

A one-off payment? You think that is all they will get over the 7 years?  

Its arrogance like this that has McCafferty in the hole that he is in now.

Sky will still broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK, so I can't see why they would reduce it just because there are no English teams. For example, lots of people in the UK watch NFL even though they have no NFL teams involved. In fact, NFL makes Sky's Top 10 most viewed programmes (unlike Sarries v Toulouse) recently.

All it means for the French clubs is that the pot will be split in 2, not 3 and they get what they always wanted, fewer games to play.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

doesnt compare well if its just a one-off payment in exchange for signing up to a new 7 year ERC participation agreement. Especially if the prl and wrr clubs don't sign up. net-net (depending how much less sky pay for the tv rights without prl clubs) they may well see an actual drop in income over the course of that 7 year deal.

as for the increase in money from RCC. quick back of envelope maths tells me that i) given that PRL have guaranteed the celtic unions no drop in revenue, and ii) the share of revenue is falling from 52% to 33%, that means iii) the prl and top14 revenue go from 24% each to 33% each of a pie which is 56% bigger overall....

so the revenue to prl and top14 increases by approx 52/24%= 117% increase. which in money terms is what, about £900k per club per annum increase? (cant remembers what current revs are but IIRC its close to £800 per premiership club).

thats an awful lot more than eur2m one-off payment.

A one-off payment? You think that is all they will get over the 7 years?  

Its arrogance like this that has McCafferty in the hole that he is in now.

Sky will still broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK, so I can't see why they would reduce it just because there are no English teams. For example, lots of people in the UK watch NFL even though they have no NFL teams involved. In fact, NFL makes Sky's Top 10 most viewed programmes (unlike Sarries v Toulouse) recently.

All it means for the French clubs is that the pot will be split in 2, not 3 and they get what they always wanted, fewer games to play.

It seems likely that Sky's future contract with ERC excludes both PRL and LNR teams (given their notice to withdraw) so if LNR do take the bribe/incentive then there may be an opportunity to negotiate a modest increase. Does that make sense?

However, the threat to the value of European rugby sponsorship described by the Saatchi geezer surely would affect ERC just as much as RCC?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Does this €2million offer from sky to the French clubs compare well to what they would make with the ccup? What are the actual figures of how much more money clubs would make with BT?

doesnt compare well if its just a one-off payment in exchange for signing up to a new 7 year ERC participation agreement. Especially if the prl and wrr clubs don't sign up. net-net (depending how much less sky pay for the tv rights without prl clubs) they may well see an actual drop in income over the course of that 7 year deal.

as for the increase in money from RCC. quick back of envelope maths tells me that i) given that PRL have guaranteed the celtic unions no drop in revenue, and ii) the share of revenue is falling from 52% to 33%, that means iii) the prl and top14 revenue go from 24% each to 33% each of a pie which is 56% bigger overall....

so the revenue to prl and top14 increases by approx 52/24%= 117% increase. which in money terms is what, about £900k per club per annum increase? (cant remembers what current revs are but IIRC its close to £800 per premiership club).

thats an awful lot more than eur2m one-off payment.

A one-off payment? You think that is all they will get over the 7 years?  

Its arrogance like this that has McCafferty in the hole that he is in now.

Sky will still broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK, so I can't see why they would reduce it just because there are no English teams. For example, lots of people in the UK watch NFL even though they have no NFL teams involved. In fact, NFL makes Sky's Top 10 most viewed programmes (unlike Sarries v Toulouse) recently.

All it means for the French clubs is that the pot will be split in 2, not 3 and they get what they always wanted, fewer games to play.

It seems likely that Sky's future contract with ERC excludes both PRL and LNR teams (given their notice to withdraw) so if LNR do take the bribe/incentive then there may be an opportunity to negotiate a modest increase. Does that make sense?

However, the threat to the value of European rugby sponsorship described by the Saatchi geezer surely would affect ERC just as much as RCC?

yes that does make sense. we are both saying that sky would pay different amounts depending who is in the competition. i was starting from the perspective of what its worth with everyone in, and then what happens if you take prl out. you are starting from prl + lnr out, and adding lnr in.

and sin e, if by arrogant you mean actually going by the numbers that have been reported, then yes i must be arrogant. oh, wait, i'm english so arrogant by default, almost forgot  

it's clearly a one-off payment from FFR (irrespective where the cash comes from). how is this confusing?

as for SKY reducing what they pay compared to a tourny with everyone in, they will do so because they can. and because they are not stupid. and also because there will absolutely be less people watching a tournament without the english clubs, everywhere apart from ireland. and because they knew the prl and lnr had withdrawn.

I'm not so sure. If SKY are offering €2million per French club remaining with ERC HEC, then is it likely that they would then reduce their HEC share? If PRL decided not to take part I guess they might reduce their offer by the 24%, or 33%, PRL share, without having to cut into the Rabo/LNR shares. I believe PRL would continue to compete in the competition if SKY and BT can come to an agreement though.

the SKY thing is just a rumour. think i might have started it