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

by niwatts Sat 23 Nov 2013, 4:46 pm

First topic message reminder :

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.

by HammerofThunor Mon 02 Dec 2013, 7:46 pm

Sin é wrote:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=65

Found some EU Directives there on broadcasting if you want to search them!

From what I've read, they are very hot on everyone having some access to cultural/sporting events, even if its delayed viewing.

They also say that with regard to sporting events, the economic value is subsidary to the cultural value - i.e., Wray is probably wasting everyone's time by threatening all and sundry with legal action for 'unfair' competition.

For example, Sky have to live with being told that certain programmes have to be shown on FTA (like the Six Nations in Wales and Ireland).

I'm not going to search through anything. I'm more than happy waiting to see if anything comes from it. After all, I'm not the one claiming anything.

Also, the 6 Nations thing is UK law (at least the Wales bit). Club rugby isn't protected as FTA in anyway.

by TJ Mon 02 Dec 2013, 9:06 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.
I'm sorry I'm a bit confused here.

You say the Pro12 give more TV money to the WRU because they're in need of the cash.

But the clubs shouldn't be given more ERC money even though they also are in need of cash?

Which is it?
I said the IRFU probably didn't push for the same amount of money as the Welsh (also 4 teams) as they are financially stable - unlike the Welsh Clubs.

Similarly, the IRFU have backed the Scots in their need to not earn any less than what they are earning now because they will go to the wall.

Its funny that isnt it.

The IFRU backing the competition that hands them out money paid for by the french and English , because they screw them in the RABO!! /headsgone

You need to stop with this nonsense - no money is transferred from the enfgglish and french to anyone. t he product sold is the european cuyp - and you can't have a european cup withou the 6N teams. Money is fairly divcide3d by entrants right now. No tranfer of funds take place. STOP REPEATING THIS LIE

by mystiroakey Mon 02 Dec 2013, 10:06 pm

Money isnt fairly distributed right now- however the deal on the table if 6 nations play is fairer

by broadlandboy Mon 02 Dec 2013, 11:06 pm

TJ's problem(like most from the Rabo Unions) is that in their eyes there is only the HEC. They conveniently forget that there is more to European Rugby.

by Sin é Mon 02 Dec 2013, 11:23 pm

broadlandboy wrote:TJ's problem(like most from the Rabo Unions) is that in their eyes there is only the HEC. They conveniently forget that there is more to European Rugby.

What does it matter what the Rabo Unions think? (Though an accurate assessment is that the Rabo Unions regard the HEC as the pinnacle of Club Rugby in the Northern Hemisphere).

You guys are just a bit annoyed (& jealous) because the Rabo teams do so well in it.

by broadlandboy Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:14 am

Just because it's the pinnacle doesn't mean that it should be the only thing. What about growing the game?
It appears that only the Irish do as well as the English & French

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:21 am

broadlandboy wrote:Just because it's the pinnacle doesn't mean that it should be the only thing. What about growing the game?
It appears that only the Irish do as well as the English & French

Rugby is the 4th sport in Ireland, so there is lots of room for development in Ireland (which is the main responsibility of the IRFU).

At least the Rabo teams are helping to grow the game in Italy. What are the PRL/FRL doing to grow the game (other than robbing young players from the Pacific Islands)?

by maestegmafia Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:26 am

Sin é wrote: than robbing young players from the Pacific Islands?

Come on Sin é that's not fair, robbing players doesn't help the PI's at all...!

What really smarts is the PRL and LNR teams wouldn't release their Fijians for the centenary match last week..!!

So much disrespect for the game all in the excuse of profit. The less impact these idiots have on rugby the better.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:49 am

maestegmafia wrote:
Sin é wrote: than robbing young players from the Pacific Islands?
Come on Sin é that's not fair, robbing players doesn't help the PI's at all...!

What really smarts is the PRL and LNR teams wouldn't release their Fijians for the centenary match last week..!!

So much disrespect for the game all in the excuse of profit. The less impact these idiots have on rugby the better.

the one outside the irb international window? like the welsh match vs australia? and it wasn't even a full international? that one you mean?

why should private clubs have respect for anything other than the rules and attempting to do as well as they can for their owners? if you don't like the rules, petition the IRB and get them changed. spamming 606 with you ill-informed irrational finger pointing only hurts you Maes.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:53 am

i hate all this whining about the PRL and RFU being spawn of the devil.

i have a proposal. clubs owned by unions can play in competitons run, controlled and owned by unions. clubs that are private can play in competitions run, controlled and owned by associations of those clubs. simple.

an anglo-french tournament of the best 4 teams in each league. the welsh might get invited if they can ever truly assert their independence from roger lewis and the wru. and the rest of the union-owned clubs can have a lovely competition between themselves where there will be no arguments because they are all working for the "greater good of the game".

and no more of this sad, pathetic blaming of the english, the english clubs, the rfu, english posters, for all the ills of rugby.

got it?

by maestegmafia Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:56 am

quinsforever wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Sin é wrote: than robbing young players from the Pacific Islands?
Come on Sin é that's not fair, robbing players doesn't help the PI's at all...!

What really smarts is the PRL and LNR teams wouldn't release their Fijians for the centenary match last week..!!

So much disrespect for the game all in the excuse of profit. The less impact these idiots have on rugby the better.
the one outside the irb international window? like the welsh match vs australia? and it wasn't even a full international? that one you mean?

why should private clubs have respect for anything other than the rules and attempting to do as well as they can for their owners? if you don't like the rules, petition the IRB and get them changed. spamming 606 with you ill-informed irrational finger pointing only hurts you Maes.

Fiji celebrating a century of rugby, playing the Barbarians, a recreation of their greatest match in 1973, at twickenham.

That is why everyone who supports rugby should be supporting that occasion. It is huge for Fiji. They are an amazing rugby nation who have given so much to the sport.

The lack of respect by not releasing players for their big occasion is deplorable. Something I never thought I would see rugby become.

Rugby was a game that united people through love of sport and respect for other nations.

by maestegmafia Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:58 am

quinsforever wrote:i hate all this whining about the PRL and RFU being spawn of the devil.

and no more of this sad, pathetic blaming of the english, the english clubs, the rfu, english posters, for all the ills of rugby.

got it?

Unless the clubs, PRL and a few English posters like yourself change for the better of the sport, you'll just have to learn to live with it...

by broadlandboy Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:59 am

Even the IRB are secretly glad that PRL/LNR teams employ so many players from Tier 2 Unions as how else would they get to play professionally. But then the Rabo Unions don't want that as the national teams will get stronger & threaten their place in the IRB rankings

by maestegmafia Tue 03 Dec 2013, 1:19 am

broadlandboy wrote:Even the IRB are secretly glad that PRL/LNR teams employ so many players from Tier 2 Unions as how else would they get to play professionally. But then the Rabo Unions don't want that as the national teams will get stronger & threaten their place in the IRB rankings

All teams will be threatened if the PI teams are regularly allowed to play at their potential not just Celtic ones.

by nth Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:41 am

Why has Aisea Natoga stopped making Fiji squads since he joined Ospreys, is he just not good enough anymore?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/ospreys-sign-fiji-flier-aisea-5101942

Ospreys sign Fiji flier Aisea Natoga after he caught the eye at the Pacific Nations Cup

The Ospreys have signed Fiji utility back Aisea Natoga.

The 22-year old, who can play at centre, wing or fullback, has played for Fiji at U18 and U20 level as well as on the sevens circuit.

He has won five caps since making his debut against Georgia last November, scoring one try.

Natoga has a reputation as a strong and pacy player with good offloading ability, catching the eye in the recent IRB Pacific Nations Cup (PNC) which was won by Fiji for the first time.

The player is currently awaiting Home Office visa clearance and is expected in Ospreylia ahead of the new season.

Ospreys operations manager, Andy Lloyd, said that Natoga is an exciting signing with a bright future ahead of him.

“We’ve been tracking Aisea for some time so we are delighted to be able to secure his services for the Ospreys,” said Lloyd.

“European rugby has seen a number of Fijian players making a huge impact in recent seasons.

“It’s clear that being in and around a professional environment where they get full nutritional and conditioning support helps them to really fulfil their explosive potential, as you’d expect.

“We definitely see that in Aisea having looked at him for a while.

“He’s someone who started to come on the international radar last autumn when he won his first cap on Fiji’s autumn tour, and he was a big part of the squad that won the Pacific Nations Cup last month.

“We’ve watched him very closely and taken feedback from some very reliable sources to ensure his suitability as a character for our environment.

“He fits what we are trying to do here as a team that remains ambitious to compete on all fronts.

“He adds another edge to our backline and gives us depth in key positions that we didn’t have last season.

“Although he’s played sevens rugby he isn’t just a stereotypical sidestepping sevens player, he has physicality and power which makes him a very dangerous player. He’s versatile and positionally he has good awareness of what is happening around him.

“As with the other signings we’ve made this summer, Aisea may be under the radar but we have worked hard to identify players who will bring something different to the mix while having a strong team ethic and a real desire to help the Ospreys continue to progress.

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:52 am

Must have been injured - he has only started 2 games for the Ospreys this season - 1 Rabo and 1 LV Cup.

by nth Tue 03 Dec 2013, 3:47 am

He started 2 and appeared from the bench for a further 2. He was in the match day squad for 4 of Ospreys' matches in November. No record of him having been injured since his arrival in August.

by hawalsh Tue 03 Dec 2013, 5:07 am

Maybe he turned down Fiji requests because he wanted to concentrate on establishing himself in his new club like Samu Manoa did at Saints.

I'm sure he didn't get his contract because Ospreys specifically stated they were after a player to cover for injuries and possible international call ups and so would avoid international duties during the Pro12 season.

by maestegmafia Tue 03 Dec 2013, 10:15 am

Fiji called on the services of the following players Netani Talei, Nikola Matawalu, Leone Nakarawa and Henry Speight for the Baa Baa match.

I dont think they asked for Aisea. As mentioned above, he really hasn't played much rugby this year which is neither good for him, Fiji or the Ospreys.

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 11:09 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.
I'm sorry I'm a bit confused here.

You say the Pro12 give more TV money to the WRU because they're in need of the cash.

But the clubs shouldn't be given more ERC money even though they also are in need of cash?

Which is it?
I said the IRFU probably didn't push for the same amount of money as the Welsh (also 4 teams) as they are financially stable - unlike the Welsh Clubs.

Similarly, the IRFU have backed the Scots in their need to not earn any less than what they are earning now because they will go to the wall.
But they don't back the SRU to get their proper share of the Pro12 money (a 6th)?

And the IRFU ARE pushing for the same money (ignoring the ACC as no-one gives a Poopie) as the English clubs even though they are in dire financial straits?

In this interview on Irish radio, Paul Rees claims that the Rabo teams split the broadcasting money 4 ways at the moment, but are now considering splitting it per team (Each team to get 1/12th).

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Rugby_on_Off_The_Ball/39512/2/Paul_Rees_gives_the_English_perspective_on_the_HCup

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:15 pm

So the regions get less per team than the Scottish teams? Even though the Scots are in a better position than the regions? That's terrible.

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 12:27 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:So the regions get less per team than the Scottish teams? Even though the Scots are in a better position than the regions? That's terrible.

The money is split between the country Unions and its up to them as to how its divided out between the clubs. In other words, the WRU & IRFU are taking the hit, not the clubs.

Good to see that the Unions walk the talk when it comes to it.

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 1:33 pm

Sorry but were they doing the right thing to start with when they gave the SRU more per team than the WRU, or are the going to be doing the right thing when they start giving the SRU less than the WRU? It can't be both. Either they were shafting the WRU or are going to be shafting the SRU.

[That's assuming Rees is correct in his off the cuff comment. I don't think he is but that's largely based on comments I read from the SRU a long time ago and can't find any link. Also the release for the Sky deal said it was going to be split 3 ways not 4. But we just don't know due to the shroud of mystery that surrounds the Pro12 TV deals (I don't know why this doesn't get more attention, it seemed like a big deal when the PRL did it)]

by quinsforever Tue 03 Dec 2013, 1:47 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Sin é wrote: than robbing young players from the Pacific Islands?
Come on Sin é that's not fair, robbing players doesn't help the PI's at all...!

What really smarts is the PRL and LNR teams wouldn't release their Fijians for the centenary match last week..!!

So much disrespect for the game all in the excuse of profit. The less impact these idiots have on rugby the better.
the one outside the irb international window? like the welsh match vs australia? and it wasn't even a full international? that one you mean?

why should private clubs have respect for anything other than the rules and attempting to do as well as they can for their owners? if you don't like the rules, petition the IRB and get them changed. spamming 606 with you ill-informed irrational finger pointing only hurts you Maes.
Fiji celebrating a century of rugby, playing the Barbarians, a recreation of their greatest match in 1973, at twickenham.

That is why everyone who supports rugby should be supporting that occasion. It is huge for Fiji. They are an amazing rugby nation who have given so much to the sport.

The lack of respect by not releasing players for their big occasion is deplorable. Something I never thought I would see rugby become.

Rugby was a game that united people through love of sport and respect for other nations.

grow up. that was never the case. and it's certainly not the case now. 99.99% of rugby is not played between nations.

by Guest Tue 03 Dec 2013, 1:51 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry but were they doing the right thing to start with when they gave the SRU more per team than the WRU, or are the going to be doing the right thing when they start giving the SRU less than the WRU? It can't be both. Either they were shafting the WRU or are going to be shafting the SRU.

[That's assuming Rees is correct in his off the cuff comment. I don't think he is but that's largely based on comments I read from the SRU a long time ago and can't find any link. Also the release for the Sky deal said it was going to be split 3 ways not 4. But we just don't know due to the shroud of mystery that surrounds the Pro12 TV deals (I don't know why this doesn't get more attention, it seemed like a big deal when the PRL did it)]

So either way you view it, one or other is being shafted? How would you propose a split of the pot? Do all 12 AP teams under the PRL umbrella receive equal amounts of the pot?

by mystiroakey Tue 03 Dec 2013, 1:58 pm

Afternoon dudes.

What are we arguing about today..

The price of runner beans, the usage of the word dude, England being evil or perhaps a bit of rugby for once?

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:02 pm

I'm just asking Sin e what he think. He claimed that it was fair for WRU to get more TV money than everyone else (due to more TV money being raised) because they needed the cash. Then it was to be a equal split per team with the Sky deal (which clearly changes this). Then Paul Rees made an off the cuff statement that the Pro12 TV money is split 4 ways.

I'm just wondering which of these is the 'fairest'? You the first one is obviously unfair (as the very suggestion that that should happen with the ERC is met with rightous fury) although it apparently is fair as the Regions need the money (although the English clubs should live within their means).

What I'm trying to point out is the complete cowpat that is spouted that is highly dependent on your (at any particular you) bias.

As far as I'm concerned anyone can ask for whatever they want and if everyone agrees (who needs to) then grand.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:26 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Afternoon dudes.

What are we arguing about today..

The price of runner beans, the usage of the word dude, England being evil or perhaps a bit of rugby for once?

strokey, nobody uses the word except your good self

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:33 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Afternoon dudes.

What are we arguing about today..

The price of runner beans, the usage of the word dude, England being evil or perhaps a bit of rugby for once?
strokey, nobody uses the word except your good self

some dudes do, dude New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed - Page 19 3845856932

by quinsforever Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:36 pm

should be some news today as 3rd december is the deadline for FFR re-authorising LNR to run the 2 pro french leagues.

and given the (public, as opposed to charitable like RFU) structure of rugby heirarchy i imagine they might have to publish "La Convention".

i plan to do a highly selective translation that will leave everyone celtic on 606 seething Wink

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:40 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry but were they doing the right thing to start with when they gave the SRU more per team than the WRU, or are the going to be doing the right thing when they start giving the SRU less than the WRU? It can't be both. Either they were shafting the WRU or are going to be shafting the SRU.

[That's assuming Rees is correct in his off the cuff comment. I don't think he is but that's largely based on comments I read from the SRU a long time ago and can't find any link. Also the release for the Sky deal said it was going to be split 3 ways not 4. But we just don't know due to the shroud of mystery that surrounds the Pro12 TV deals (I don't know why this doesn't get more attention, it seemed like a big deal when the PRL did it)]

This agreement to split everything equally between the unions could be going back from the start of the celtic league (there wasn't much to divide then as for the first couple of years it had no sponsor and was on FTA, then Magners Cider (which doesn't distribute in Ireland as Magners, although an Irish company).

The WRU is doing well financially (winning back to back 6 Nations etc) and are not short of a few bob at the moment (unlike the SRU) so why the poor WRU? The Welsh clubs turn down financial help from the WRU anyway! The IRFU are taking a similar hit to the WRU and are not complaining about it either. The important thing is everyone agreed on how it should be split and now circumstances have changed with Sky broadcasting in the UK and Ireland (you see, Sky regard UK & Ireland as one area even though there are two countries involved) as well as the FTA broadcasters. Italy have their own broadcaster.

The Italians have their own deal in Italy.

I don't think the TV deal is shrouded in secrecy - that is because the partners just work it out between them at board level and the fact that there are so many broadcasters involved, make it a bit difficult to figure out.

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:43 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm just asking Sin e what he think. He claimed that it was fair for WRU to get more TV money than everyone else (due to more TV money being raised) because they needed the cash. Then it was to be a equal split per team with the Sky deal (which clearly changes this). Then Paul Rees made an off the cuff statement that the Pro12 TV money is split 4 ways.

I'm just wondering which of these is the 'fairest'? You the first one is obviously unfair (as the very suggestion that that should happen with the ERC is met with rightous fury) although it apparently is fair as the Regions need the money (although the English clubs should live within their means).

What I'm trying to point out is the complete cowpat that is spouted that is highly dependent on your (at any particular you) bias.

As far as I'm concerned anyone can ask for whatever they want and if everyone agrees (who needs to) then grand.

I claimed nothing of the sort. I gave it as a possible explanation.

I think the fairest deal is decided by those at the negotiating table. The Board of the Pro 12 (Celtic Rugby Ltd) seems to be able to do that without running to their pet journalists to whinge on their behalf for them.

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:49 pm

quinsforever wrote:

i plan to do a highly selective translation that will leave everyone celtic on 606 seething

We Celts can afford to be generous Quins. Rant away;)

Really feel for some of the English club fans. Exeter posted photos of some of their players handing out coffee to their supporters who were queing for Heineken Cup tickets yesterday. Really sad they won't be in the competition next year Hug

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:56 pm

Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:I'm just asking Sin e what he think. He claimed that it was fair for WRU to get more TV money than everyone else (due to more TV money being raised) because they needed the cash. Then it was to be a equal split per team with the Sky deal (which clearly changes this). Then Paul Rees made an off the cuff statement that the Pro12 TV money is split 4 ways.

I'm just wondering which of these is the 'fairest'? You the first one is obviously unfair (as the very suggestion that that should happen with the ERC is met with rightous fury) although it apparently is fair as the Regions need the money (although the English clubs should live within their means).

What I'm trying to point out is the complete cowpat that is spouted that is highly dependent on your (at any particular you) bias.

As far as I'm concerned anyone can ask for whatever they want and if everyone agrees (who needs to) then grand.
I claimed nothing of the sort. I gave it as a possible explanation.

I think the fairest deal is decided by those at the negotiating table. The Board of the Pro 12 (Celtic Rugby Ltd) seems to be able to do that without running to their pet journalists to whinge on their behalf for them.

OK, so therefore there's nothing wrong with asking for more? If it's agreed (such as the unions agreeing a 3 way split in the profits, which was asked for by the PRL) then it's fair? Good we agree then thumbsup

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 2:58 pm

Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry but were they doing the right thing to start with when they gave the SRU more per team than the WRU, or are the going to be doing the right thing when they start giving the SRU less than the WRU? It can't be both. Either they were shafting the WRU or are going to be shafting the SRU.

[That's assuming Rees is correct in his off the cuff comment. I don't think he is but that's largely based on comments I read from the SRU a long time ago and can't find any link. Also the release for the Sky deal said it was going to be split 3 ways not 4. But we just don't know due to the shroud of mystery that surrounds the Pro12 TV deals (I don't know why this doesn't get more attention, it seemed like a big deal when the PRL did it)]
This agreement to split everything equally between the unions could be going back from the start of the celtic league (there wasn't much to divide then as for the first couple of years it had no sponsor and was on FTA, then Magners Cider (which doesn't distribute in Ireland as Magners, although an Irish company).

The WRU is doing well financially (winning back to back 6 Nations etc) and are not short of a few bob at the moment (unlike the SRU) so why the poor WRU? The Welsh clubs turn down financial help from the WRU anyway! The IRFU are taking a similar hit to the WRU and are not complaining about it either. The important thing is everyone agreed on how it should be split and now circumstances have changed with Sky broadcasting in the UK and Ireland (you see, Sky regard UK & Ireland as one area even though there are two countries involved) as well as the FTA broadcasters. Italy have their own broadcaster.

The Italians have their own deal in Italy.

I don't think the TV deal is shrouded in secrecy - that is because the partners just work it out between them at board level and the fact that there are so many broadcasters involved, make it a bit difficult to figure out.

OK, let's keep it simple. How much do BBCW pay for PRO12 rights? How much do the WRU get for PRO12 coverage?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 03 Dec 2013, 3:10 pm

quinsforever wrote:should be some news today as 3rd december is the deadline for FFR re-authorising LNR to run the 2 pro french leagues.

and given the (public, as opposed to charitable like RFU) structure of rugby heirarchy i imagine they might have to publish "La Convention".

i plan to do a highly selective translation that will leave everyone celtic on 606 seething

No change there then?! Whistle

by Guest Tue 03 Dec 2013, 3:13 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm just asking Sin e what he think. He claimed that it was fair for WRU to get more TV money than everyone else (due to more TV money being raised) because they needed the cash. Then it was to be a equal split per team with the Sky deal (which clearly changes this). Then Paul Rees made an off the cuff statement that the Pro12 TV money is split 4 ways.

I'm just wondering which of these is the 'fairest'? You the first one is obviously unfair (as the very suggestion that that should happen with the ERC is met with rightous fury) although it apparently is fair as the Regions need the money (although the English clubs should live within their means).

What I'm trying to point out is the complete cowpat that is spouted that is highly dependent on your (at any particular you) bias.

As far as I'm concerned anyone can ask for whatever they want and if everyone agrees (who needs to) then grand.

I think a 4 way split between the 4 unions is fair enough. True that it doesn't represent the number of each unions participant teams, but if the objective is to encourage growth within those unions which are lesser represented then ultimately it is to the benefit of all, I believe. Well, that's the ideal, and one which those of us on the Rabo side of the debate projected unto the PRL/LNR HEC shares when in debate. That's why we tend to argue that 24% allocated to each of those Unions is more than fair. I know those on the other side of the debate don't agree. Just pointing out a mindset.
The Rabo may divide the pot equally by team entered, rather than union, but then those unions with less teams entered would loose half their split. Personally I would be against this as Scotland have already mentioned how damaging any loss of their share would be.
Personally I would hope that whatever is agreed would be to the benefit of all in a bigger picture sense, even if that does mean that some don't receive an equal share.

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 3:16 pm

I told you it was complicated by having 7 (I think) different broadcasters.

Supposedly it was worth 20m (I think I read somewhere), so I'd imagine the WRU got 5m of that.

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 3:21 pm

Sin é wrote:I told you it was complicated by having 7 (I think) different broadcasters.

Supposedly it was worth 20m (I think I read somewhere), so I'd imagine the WRU got 5m of that.

Well then let's make it even more simple. How much does the PRO12 generate in TV money in total? Actual numbers rather than I think I read somewhere. Is it actually published anywhere?

The only reason I ask is because there were quite a few questions about the BT deal (the Premiership bit) suggesting it was more secretive than normal. But when I tried to find out about the Pro12 TV deals I drew a blank.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 03 Dec 2013, 3:26 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:I told you it was complicated by having 7 (I think) different broadcasters.

Supposedly it was worth 20m (I think I read somewhere), so I'd imagine the WRU got 5m of that.
Well then let's make it even more simple. How much does the PRO12 generate in TV money in total? Actual numbers rather than I think I read somewhere. Is it actually published anywhere?

The only reason I ask is because there were quite a few questions about the BT deal (the Premiership bit) suggesting it was more secretive than normal. But when I tried to find out about the Pro12 TV deals I drew a blank.

It's very possible that the precise details remain between the parties, Thunor - but on the other hand, nobody is claiming that it is so much better than any rival deal without being willing to show details?

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 3:33 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:I told you it was complicated by having 7 (I think) different broadcasters.

Supposedly it was worth 20m (I think I read somewhere), so I'd imagine the WRU got 5m of that.
Well then let's make it even more simple. How much does the PRO12 generate in TV money in total? Actual numbers rather than I think I read somewhere. Is it actually published anywhere?

The only reason I ask is because there were quite a few questions about the BT deal (the Premiership bit) suggesting it was more secretive than normal. But when I tried to find out about the Pro12 TV deals I drew a blank.

It would be published in their annual accounts. The name of the company is Celtic Rugby Limited.

By the way, the only reason people were interested in the PRL's BT deal is because people suspect that the deal is dependent on delivering a new European Competition with at least 5 other nations playing in it (and which maybe the reason why the PRL wanted to destroy the Heineken Cup).

Supposedly, if they don't deliver this new competition, the PRL get substantially less for the Aviva deal (some say even less than what they were getting orignally from Sky).

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:05 pm

Quiners, you need to have a word with O'Shea Very Happy

conor o'shea wrote:"We all want to be playing in Europe," said O'Shea. "We want to be there. We had a poor start to the season, but the competitive juices started flowing after Clermont. These are the matches you want to play in because of the he atmosphere, the hostility, the quality of players you are up against. Our guys would really miss it if they were not involved in those big games, and hopefully there is still a chance they will be.

"The players enjoy it because it is a break from the norm. It is just fun for everyone. In your own league, you can always tell what is going to happen from one week to the next, but it is less predictable when you go into Europe. Everybody wants it. So many of the hurdles have already been crossed in terms of qualification and distribution of finance. Everyone seems to be in agreement, so let's just get across the line. Maybe someone will have to swallow their pride a bit, but it is better for the game and that's what we all want."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/a-european-competition-without-english-involvement-is-not-a-european-competition-at-al.22847422

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:06 pm

Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:I told you it was complicated by having 7 (I think) different broadcasters.

Supposedly it was worth 20m (I think I read somewhere), so I'd imagine the WRU got 5m of that.
Well then let's make it even more simple. How much does the PRO12 generate in TV money in total? Actual numbers rather than I think I read somewhere. Is it actually published anywhere?

The only reason I ask is because there were quite a few questions about the BT deal (the Premiership bit) suggesting it was more secretive than normal. But when I tried to find out about the Pro12 TV deals I drew a blank.
It would be published in their annual accounts. The name of the company is Celtic Rugby Limited.

By the way, the only reason people were interested in the PRL's BT deal is because people suspect that the deal is dependent on delivering a new European Competition with at least 5 other nations playing in it (and which maybe the reason why the PRL wanted to destroy the Heineken Cup).

Supposedly, if they don't deliver this new competition, the PRL get substantially less for the Aviva deal (some say even less than what they were getting orignally from Sky).

So they were looking for insider information about the Premiership TV deal they could use for their advatange in negotiations? I understand why they would want to see that. I also see why the PRL wouldn't want them to see that. And since it wouldn't actually have any bearing on whether the deal was a good one or not it's largely irrelevant isn't it?

Although it would be quite funny if it was true. Much more likely is that the European part is based on the structure of the European games. After all, that would actually make sense.

I seem to remember that an IRFU official said that the BT deal represented about 20M euros and the 'increase' was based on projected figures. Anyone else remember this or did I dream it again? I've tried to find it but can't.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:10 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:I told you it was complicated by having 7 (I think) different broadcasters.

Supposedly it was worth 20m (I think I read somewhere), so I'd imagine the WRU got 5m of that.
Well then let's make it even more simple. How much does the PRO12 generate in TV money in total? Actual numbers rather than I think I read somewhere. Is it actually published anywhere?

The only reason I ask is because there were quite a few questions about the BT deal (the Premiership bit) suggesting it was more secretive than normal. But when I tried to find out about the Pro12 TV deals I drew a blank.
It would be published in their annual accounts. The name of the company is Celtic Rugby Limited.

By the way, the only reason people were interested in the PRL's BT deal is because people suspect that the deal is dependent on delivering a new European Competition with at least 5 other nations playing in it (and which maybe the reason why the PRL wanted to destroy the Heineken Cup).

Supposedly, if they don't deliver this new competition, the PRL get substantially less for the Aviva deal (some say even less than what they were getting orignally from Sky).
So they were looking for insider information about the Premiership TV deal they could use for their advatange in negotiations? I understand why they would want to see that. I also see why the PRL wouldn't want them to see that. And since it wouldn't actually have any bearing on whether the deal was a good one or not it's largely irrelevant isn't it?

Although it would be quite funny if it was true. Much more likely is that the European part is based on the structure of the European games. After all, that would actually make sense.

I seem to remember that an IRFU official said that the BT deal represented about 20M euros and the 'increase' was based on projected figures. Anyone else remember this or did I dream it again? I've tried to find it but can't.

You see, I don't get that - if that was my trump card, and to all intents and purposes, it pretty much was for PRL, then I'd be showing folks just how much everyone could make in the new world to convince them to join me - their reluctance to do so just led to everyone assuming that there were 'less palatable' clauses contained therein ... or else, in fact, it was simply a smoke screen to mask the true objective?

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:18 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:You see, I don't get that - if that was my trump card, and to all intents and purposes, it pretty much was for PRL, then I'd be showing folks just how much everyone could make in the new world to convince them to join me - their reluctance to do so just led to everyone assuming that there were 'less palatable' clauses contained therein ... or else, in fact, it was simply a smoke screen to mask the true objective?

You think they should have shown their entire domestic broadcast contract? Are they even allowed to by BT? Did they show the relevant bits? Or nothing? How much do needed to be seen?

What true objective?

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:18 pm

Derek McGrath erc wrote:“The alternative is to start up a new competition based on the BT contract. It’s been said that this completion could generate £60 to £70 million. But the only bit known about that package is the BT element which would only make up £20 million, odd. No one has seen that contract so no one knows what it represents. And where’s the other £50 million coming from? Any French TV deal by law would have to have approval of the FFR (French Federation Rugby) and they say they won’t be. So it’s hardly achievable, from a business point of view, and yet this is supposed to be a better business model.

'We' were not looking for insider information. And ''we'' don't need to be given the details. The potential partners in this new cup would need to see that it was viable and the only conclusion one can come to for not being let see the contract, that there is something that the PRL don't want them to see.

by HammerofThunor Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:21 pm

Sin é wrote:
Derek McGrath erc wrote:“The alternative is to start up a new competition based on the BT contract. It’s been said that this completion could generate £60 to £70 million. But the only bit known about that package is the BT element which would only make up £20 million, odd. No one has seen that contract so no one knows what it represents. And where’s the other £50 million coming from? Any French TV deal by law would have to have approval of the FFR (French Federation Rugby) and they say they won’t be. So it’s hardly achievable, from a business point of view, and yet this is supposed to be a better business model.
'We' were not looking for insider information. And ''we'' don't need to be given the details. The potential partners in this new cup would need to see that it was viable and the only conclusion one can come to for not being let see the contract, that there is something that the PRL don't want them to see.

OK so they clearly know how much is generated by the BT deal. What more do 'they' need to see? Why do they need to see the details of the deal for the English Premiership?

EDIT: Cheers for the quote, I was looking for that for ages.

by mystiroakey Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:25 pm

Well if English teams can generate 20 m, then its pretty prudent to suggest a figure of 60m. with 3 other leagues of the same size with more teams playing and the international sell on rights, and the sponsership etc

Unless you think that the rabbo and the french are not as valuable.

BUt of off course you dont think that do you. That is your whole Schick- that the rest will make as much money!

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:32 pm

I think the issue was that nothing was put down on paper, more than anything else. As you have experienced, it was hard enough to find that information (buried in an interview a few months back with the CEO of ERC).

McCafferty, Wray & Co. were happy to mislead everyone into thinking that the RCC Cup was going to be worth 60 or 70m and that the Unions were mad not to go with it, whereas in reality it was worth 20m, and the RCC had no sponsor.

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 4:35 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Well if English teams can generate 20 m, then its pretty prudent to suggest a figure of 60m. with 3 other leagues of the same size with more teams playing and the international sell on rights, and the sponsership etc

Unless you think that the rabbo and the french are not as valuable.

BUt of off course you dont think that do you. That is your whole Schick- that the rest will make as much money!

The BT element of the European Cup is 20m, not the Aviva.

Basically we don't know, because no one has seen the contract and you can't believe/or trust what Wray, McCafferty & Craig say.

by Sponsored content