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

TJ wrote:What the PRL said.  They were saying how much the RCC was worth and how much each union would get from it.  That implies they had "sold" all the games.

They haven't specifically said how much it will be worth, just that there will be more money than the ERC have negotiated because of what they've managed to negotiate and what the French are expecting to get.  They won't know for certain what it is worth until the French have sold their rights.  The LNR ccertainly wouldn't be on board with the PLR if they had sold rights to their games, and there wouldn't be the money they are alluding to if they had.

broadlandboy wrote:Where is the evidence that PRL sold rights to matches outside of England?

If they haven't sold those other rights then what is all the extra money they promised to the Celtic and Italian Unions actually for.We would be able to pocket this extra cash and then sell our own rights to Sky or BT for even more money?Does that scenario sound realistic and if it does why wouldn't PRL show the other Unions the contract so they could sign up for this fantastic deal.

Its a part of the issue - the PRL want to sell us a pig in a poke

An article published 12/09/2012. Mail Online:

.......Mark McCafferty, chief executive of PRL, defended his organisation’s revolutionary actions in doing a deal with BT worth ‘up to’ £152million over
four years — or three years in terms of the European part — saying: ‘We believe we are delivering a deal which provides significantly more money for all sides in all countries, so we expect them to be positive about it. We
are producing a large new investor in rugby, for the good of everyone
in the European game, so we would be surprised if there wasn’t a positive
response.’

BT believe they have backed the right horse, with their chief executive Marc Watson boldly declaring their agreement with PRL has paved the way for a ‘successor to the Heineken Cup’.
‘We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we’ve bought give us an opportunity to do that,’ he said. ‘We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament.’

That's clearly talking about in England. They don't own the rights for the Pro12 so they don't own the exclusive rights to the sport in the Uk. But they do have he rights for the sport involving the english clubs.

I'm pretty sure that one of the IRFU guys said the the values talked about by the PRL were projected values and the BT money only contributed £20M (May have been Euros). The rest would come from other TV deals and sponsorship.

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/story/169756.html

Key part

"ERC's suggestion that Premiership Rugby may be in breach of IRB regulations is wrong. Following Premiership Rugby's agreement with the RFU, dated 16 October 2007 Premiership Rugby has specific consent to control the broadcast rights of its clubs."

Either the PRL having been spending time with Rob Ford or they're talking about their own TV rights.

HammerofThunor wrote:That's clearly talking about in England. They don't own the rights for the Pro12 so they don't own the exclusive rights to the sport in the Uk. But they do have he rights for the sport involving the english clubs.

I'm pretty sure that one of the IRFU guys said the the values talked about by the PRL were projected values and the BT money only contributed £20M (May have been Euros). The rest would come from other TV deals  and sponsorship.

Hammer, it is clearly talking about BT owning a 'dazzling new European tournament', which would replace the HEC. They used PRL in an attempt to usurp control from SKY. PRL seized the opportunity in an attempt to usurp control from the Unions.

To be honest, I think the PRL and BT Sport have been too clever for their own good in trying to secure European broadcasting rights through the back door. I suspect the whole reason BT approached the PRL and not the ERC was the desire to avoid a bidding war with Sky. Sky would have expected bidding through the ERC and will have been blindsided.

ERC have been criticised for selling their rights to Sky, but what exactly where they meant to do? Once BT had signed a deal for a new European competition the only broadcaster in the market for ERC competitions was Sky.

End result; PRL have put themselves in an all or nothing situation. They now have no scope for compromise. Also, PRLs approach has been very confrontational and made them enemies unnecessarily amongst the Unions. They've burned too many bridges.

I wouldn't be overly critical of the Unions; call me biased but once they've acted to protect the game in their own countries they are doing their duty. The Unions concerns are much wider than this dispute. They have a responsibility to rugby at every level from grassroots to international and the middle of that pyramid is the professional club/regional game; they can't in all good conscience hand over the keys to the car to people who's main interest isn't necessarily in developing players for the next level of rugby. There's a danger in clubs having no responsibilities or obligations to national sides we're already seeing, and a competition which isn't at least partially controlled by the six unions also rings warning bells.

HammerofThunor wrote:For a guy they don't have a contract with? No. Why would they?

I don't understand when you say that 'teams like Wasps get the most out of the PRL' particularly after Saracens taking one of their players.

http://sports.howzit.msn.com/rugby/irfu-boss-blasts-english-clubs

This is where Browne says they have sold the rights

"It is also bizarre that Premier Rugby Ltd (English) castigated ERC for selling the rights centrally then went off and sold the rights to all matches involving English teams in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to BT Vision without any reference to the Irish union, Scottish union, Welsh union or, I think, to the English union."

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:For a guy they don't have a contract with? No. Why would they?

I don't understand when you say that 'teams like Wasps get the most out of the PRL' particularly after Saracens taking one of their players.

Wasps get more from the collective than they would if they went on their own. They also apply salary cap restrictions to the richer clubs. They got a very deal off the RFU than they would have alone. Worst thing would be if the strong few split off and left the rest to fend for themselves.

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:That's clearly talking about in England. They don't own the rights for the Pro12 so they don't own the exclusive rights to the sport in the Uk. But they do have he rights for the sport involving the english clubs.

I'm pretty sure that one of the IRFU guys said the the values talked about by the PRL were projected values and the BT money only contributed £20M (May have been Euros). The rest would come from other TV deals  and sponsorship.

Hammer, it is clearly talking about BT owning a 'dazzling new European tournament', which would replace the HEC. They used PRL in an attempt to usurp control from SKY. PRL seized the opportunity in an attempt to usurp control from the Unions.

Then why did they say owning a sport at club level rather than owning a competition? They completely own the rights to English club rugby.

Care to explain the bit about PRL the EPS deal in 2007 gives them the rights if they sold other unions'?

HammerofThunor wrote:http://sports.howzit.msn.com/rugby/irfu-boss-blasts-english-clubs

This is where Browne says they have sold the rights

"It is also bizarre that Premier Rugby Ltd (English) castigated ERC for selling the rights centrally then went off and sold the rights to all matches involving English teams in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to BT Vision without any reference to the Irish union, Scottish union, Welsh union or, I think, to the English union."

Hammer, that article actually supports the point that I, and others, have been making:headscratch: PRL signed away the rights to BT for all ERC clubs which are then supposed to enter some dazzling new competition.

I know. I'm trying to break from tradition on here and actually post as many facts as possible. Not just the ones that back my point. Crazy I know.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:That's clearly talking about in England. They don't own the rights for the Pro12 so they don't own the exclusive rights to the sport in the Uk. But they do have he rights for the sport involving the english clubs.

I'm pretty sure that one of the IRFU guys said the the values talked about by the PRL were projected values and the BT money only contributed £20M (May have been Euros). The rest would come from other TV deals  and sponsorship.

Hammer, it is clearly talking about BT owning a 'dazzling new European tournament', which would replace the HEC. They used PRL in an attempt to usurp control from SKY. PRL seized the opportunity in an attempt to usurp control from the Unions.

Then why did they say owning a sport at club level rather than owning a competition? They completely own the rights to English club rugby.

Care to explain the bit about PRL the EPS deal in 2007 gives them the rights if they sold other unions'?

They say they want to own the sport at club level because they can't say they can are own the sport at national level.

Taking all the information together I think (only think) that he's either wrong or he's talking about the selling of rights in these countries, not the selling of games in these countries. So the fact the PRL sold the rights of their games to be viewed in Ireland, not the games that take place in Ireland.

That's the only thing that's fits all the information (and you don't just ignore stuff).

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:http://sports.howzit.msn.com/rugby/irfu-boss-blasts-english-clubs

This is where Browne says they have sold the rights

"It is also bizarre that Premier Rugby Ltd (English) castigated ERC for selling the rights centrally then went off and sold the rights to all matches involving English teams in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to BT Vision without any reference to the Irish union, Scottish union, Welsh union or, I think, to the English union."

Hammer, that article actually supports the point that I, and others, have been making:headscratch: PRL signed away the rights to BT for all ERC clubs which are then supposed to enter some dazzling new competition.

Hammer posted that because of what he said earlier:

HammerofThunor wrote:Did they? Everything they've said suggests otherwise. Browne said they had sold the other games but he hasn't seen the contract.

There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

My point was they don't own the game at club level. Not even in the Uk because of the pro12. They Do own the English domestic game though.

HammerofThunor wrote:I know. I'm trying to break from tradition on here and actually post as many facts as possible. Not just the ones that back my point. Crazy I know.

Its why folk might listen to what you have to say

i think all this boils down to some very straight forward stuff.

the PRL was un happy

the PRL left the HC- they havent lied to get a better deal in the HC- They have just LEFT.

They have propossed another tourny..

THATS IT.

I have to move on from this for a bit(untill something happens)

because we are all just driving each other mental with the circular arguments and suppositions

niwatts wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:http://sports.howzit.msn.com/rugby/irfu-boss-blasts-english-clubs

This is where Browne says they have sold the rights

"It is also bizarre that Premier Rugby Ltd (English) castigated ERC for selling the rights centrally then went off and sold the rights to all matches involving English teams in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to BT Vision without any reference to the Irish union, Scottish union, Welsh union or, I think, to the English union."

Hammer, that article actually supports the point that I, and others, have been making:headscratch: PRL signed away the rights to BT for all ERC clubs which are then supposed to enter some dazzling new competition.

Hammer posted that because of what he said earlier:

HammerofThunor wrote:Did they? Everything they've said suggests otherwise. Browne said they had sold the other games but he hasn't seen the contract.

Browne didn't need to see the contract if the head of BT vision has been accurately quoted in the MailOnline article I posted.

BT SPORT YOU MEAN!

bt vision was there old tv service

So you're saying he made the same assumptions as you? How do you explain the PRL's claim that the EPS deal with the RFU gives control of the rights to them?

mystiroakey wrote:BT SPORT YOU MEAN!

bt vision was there old tv service

No, I meant BT Vision, as reported in the article I posted, even if they now operate under a different name from then.

HammerofThunor wrote:So you're saying he made the same assumptions as you? How do you explain the PRL's claim that the EPS deal with the RFU gives control of the rights to them?

No, I'm saying the complete opposite. Browne didn't need to assume. The MailOnline article, and the response from the head of BT Vision (now BT Sport for mystir..) removes the need for assumption as the deal, at least at that level, is fairly obvious.

It doesn't say "at that level" it says "at club level". They don't have any of the Pro12 rights, and all the reports say games involving the English clubs. So even IF they include games involving the English clubs outside of England they don't include (for example a game between Ospreys and Toulon or Leinster and Glasgow). So they can't be saying the own the European cup. The ONLY thing that 'a fits with what they say is that the own the exclusive rights to the English club games.

It also doesn't fit with the PRL claiming the RFU gave them control over the rights they sold.

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:BT SPORT YOU MEAN!

bt vision was there old tv service

No, I meant BT Vision, as reported in the article I posted, even if they now operate under a different name from then.

what article

and bt sport isnt the new bt vision.

the new bt vision is just bt tv

bt sport is a new venture that actually broadcasts its own serivces!

broadlandboy wrote:There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

So, when the Celts & Italian joined in this new cup, they would have been able to sell their own rights?

Very generous of the PRL to guarantee the Celts & Italians a load of money for just turning up to play and then be able to make more on the side by selling their own rights to games!

It doesn't available now but it was of most of the articles around that time. Searching won't take long

Sin e they propsed a new tourny- there didnt/dont have to accept!

get over it

mystiroakey wrote:and bt sport isnt the new bt vision.

the new bt vision is just bt tv

bt sport is a new venture that actually broadcasts its own serivces!

This should've all been perfectly clear to any right-minded individual.

The PRL folk were perfectly entitled to throw their baby out of the pram because the hoi polloi couldn't grasp it.

Idiots.

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

So, when the Celts & Italian joined in this new cup, they would have been able to sell their own rights?

Very generous of the PRL to guarantee the Celts & Italians a load of money for just turning up to play and then be able to make more on the side by selling their own rights to games!

The money from the BT deal was to go into a central pot. Apparently the values suggested were based on projections on what the other TV and sponsorship deals would be worth. I think the PRL expect that all the TV deal monies would go into a central pot.

HammerofThunor wrote:It doesn't say "at that level" it says "at club level". They don't have any of the Pro12 rights, and all the reports say games involving the English clubs. So even IF they include games involving the English clubs outside of England they don't include (for example a game between Ospreys and Toulon or Leinster and Glasgow). So they can't be saying the own the European cup. The ONLY thing that 'a fits with what they say is that the own the exclusive rights to the English club games.

It also doesn't fit with the PRL claiming the RFU gave them control over the rights they sold.

No, I'm saying 'at that level', or 'at face value' if you prefer....

How are you not understanding this, Hammer? It's in black and white. Forget about who has what rights within the HEC. That's irrelevant, and it's irrelevant because it's conditional on the HEC ceasing to exist as is, and the creation of a new competition of which would consist of clubs that previously participated in the HEC, but have now agreed terms for this dazzling new competition at the sanction of their respective Unions.

Well...that was the plan anyway...

I thought you were claiming the PRL had sold the IRFU, etc rights?

HammerofThunor wrote:I thought you were claiming the PRL had sold the IRFU, etc rights?

No, more that PRL had attempted to sell the European club competition from under them. If they were successful in abolishing the HEC as it is, then any club rights to that same competition would have been removed, and new terms negotiated between club, and Union.

So just to be clear you're not saying that (for example) if the IRFU joined the RCC then their home games would already be owned by BT?

HammerofThunor wrote:So just to be clear you're not saying that (for example) if the IRFU joined the RCC then their home games would already be owned by BT?

That would depend on BT, but BT has already stated very clearly that they want exclusive rights to the proposed new competition, it's in the article I posted, and I would think it very unlikely that they would be willing to share broadcasting rights. They would effectively own that competition for the duration of any contract.

The bit you highlighted said they want to own a sport at club level. That's not clearly stating what you're claiming. It 'could' mean that but it certain isn't clear.

And it goes counter to the other clearer statements. For example, the fact it only covers English games in any future European competition. And the fact the PRL said they have control over the rights by the RFU.

Munchkin wrote:... BT has already stated very clearly that they want exclusive rights to the proposed new competition...

I'm pretty sure most sports broadcasters would prefer exclusive rights to any competitions they plan on showing. That doesn't mean they already have a contract.

HammerofThunor wrote:The bit you highlighted said they want to own a sport at club level. That's not clearly stating what you're claiming. It 'could' mean that but it certain isn't clear.

And it goes counter to the other clearer statements. For example, the fact it only covers English games in any future European competition. And the fact the PRL said they have control over the rights by the RFU.

There's absolutely no doubting the intent of BT in that statement, Hammer:

‘We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we’ve bought give us an opportunity to do that,’ he said. ‘We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament.’

BT wanted to take over the tournament from SKY who at present have exclusive broadcasting rights. There is no proposal for shared BT/SKY rights, and BT make it very clear that they have no intention to share.

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So just to be clear you're not saying that (for example) if the IRFU joined the RCC then their home games would already be owned by BT?

That would depend on BT, but BT has already stated very clearly that they want exclusive rights to the proposed new competition, it's in the article I posted, and I would think it very unlikely that they would be willing to share broadcasting rights. They would effectively own that competition for the duration of any contract.

I don't agree at all that is what is meant by that BT statement.  I can vaguely see how you can attempt to confuse its meaning, but that doesn't match the reality, the numbers or other parts of the puzzle.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:... BT has already stated very clearly that they want exclusive rights to the proposed new competition...

I'm pretty sure most sports broadcasters would prefer exclusive rights to any competitions they plan on showing. That doesn't mean they already have a contract.

Unless of course they already have a contract whereby they have exclusive rights....

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The bit you highlighted said they want to own a sport at club level. That's not clearly stating what you're claiming. It 'could' mean that but it certain isn't clear.

And it goes counter to the other clearer statements. For example, the fact it only covers English games in any future European competition. And the fact the PRL said they have control over the rights by the RFU.

There's absolutely no doubting the intent of BT in that statement, Hammer:

‘We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we’ve bought give us an opportunity to do that,’ he said. ‘We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament.’

BT wanted to take over the tournament from SKY who at present have exclusive broadcasting rights. There is no proposal for shared BT/SKY rights, and BT make it very clear that they have no intention to share.

Not much point continuing down this point as we reading the same thing but seeing different.

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The bit you highlighted said they want to own a sport at club level. That's not clearly stating what you're claiming. It 'could' mean that but it certain isn't clear.

And it goes counter to the other clearer statements. For example, the fact it only covers English games in any future European competition. And the fact the PRL said they have control over the rights by the RFU.

There's absolutely no doubting the intent of BT in that statement, Hammer:

‘We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we’ve bought give us an opportunity to do that,’ he said. ‘We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament.’

BT wanted to take over the tournament from SKY who at present have exclusive broadcasting rights. There is no proposal for shared BT/SKY rights, and BT make it very clear that they have no intention to share.

BT would have had to have offered far more than they did for the PRL to claim there was going to be substantially more money in a new competition if they were going to have exclusive rights.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

So, when the Celts & Italian joined in this new cup, they would have been able to sell their own rights?

Very generous of the PRL to guarantee the Celts & Italians a load of money for just turning up to play and then be able to make more on the side by selling their own rights to games!

The money from the BT deal was to go into a central pot. Apparently the values suggested were based on projections on what the other TV and sponsorship deals would be worth. I think the PRL expect that all the TV deal monies would go into a central pot.

Would the Celts & the Italians be able to sell their own media and sponsorship rights of this new competition?

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:... BT has already stated very clearly that they want exclusive rights to the proposed new competition...

I'm pretty sure most sports broadcasters would prefer exclusive rights to any competitions they plan on showing. That doesn't mean they already have a contract.

Unless of course they already have a contract whereby they have exclusive rights....

A contract with who? The IRFU, etc hold those rights so a contract with anyone else would be meaningless.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

So, when the Celts & Italian joined in this new cup, they would have been able to sell their own rights?

Very generous of the PRL to guarantee the Celts & Italians a load of money for just turning up to play and then be able to make more on the side by selling their own rights to games!

The money from the BT deal was to go into a central pot. Apparently the values suggested were based on projections on what the other TV and sponsorship deals would be worth. I think the PRL expect that all the TV deal monies would go into a central pot.

Would the Celts & the Italians be able to sell the media and sponsorship rights of this new competition?

I'm not on the inside but I would assume so. I would also assume it would go into the same pot the English money does. Is this not obvious?

niwatts wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So just to be clear you're not saying that (for example) if the IRFU joined the RCC then their home games would already be owned by BT?

That would depend on BT, but BT has already stated very clearly that they want exclusive rights to the proposed new competition, it's in the article I posted, and I would think it very unlikely that they would be willing to share broadcasting rights. They would effectively own that competition for the duration of any contract.

I don't agree at all that is what is meant by that BT statement.  I can vaguely see how you can attempt to confuse its meaning, but that doesn't match the reality, the numbers or other parts of the puzzle.

You're right.  A broadcasting company - BT Sports; declaring that their aim is "Owning a sport exclusively" has to mean they are sharing...