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

First topic message reminder :

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:I don't think any one is argueing that the HEC is not a great comp, some are saying that it is not be all & end all & there is more to rugby.
PRL/BT have not stated the amount for Aviva & Europe separately as this would give information to Sky. However PRL have stated that PRL clubs will be better off with just the Aviva under the BT deal than they are now with the present combined Aviva/Europe.
The BT deal is for Aviva with an agreement that BT will have PRL's rights in any European comp.

It sounds like they have. The quote from Sin e suggests the BT part is worth about 20-odd million per year. Assuming he's talking in Euros and that 20-odd is about 20 (certainly reads that way). Over three years so thats 60 million. So that's about £50MM. Assuming that's top amount and therefore releases the whole "up to" £152M it means there is between £102M for the Premiership over four years. So thats £25M per year. Previous Sky/ESPN deal was for around £54M for 3 years, or about £18M per year. So that's an extra £7M a year for the Premeirship.

About

Thats working out ok so for the AP clubs. They now have a little over £2m for tv rights this year. Last year they got £1.9m (between AP & ERC).

Down guarantee of 3 home sell-out games (plus corporate entertainment ect).

They weren't sell outs. Even Tigers didn't sell out all the ERC games. But they can replace it with an English cup. Won't make as much but will probably make enough. Would be great if the Championship sides got involved and got an equal share (per team).

I wouldn't expect Tigers to sell out as they have a fairly big stadium, but clubs like Exeter were selling out (average 10k for HCup). Average about 7K for Aviva Premiership last year.

No HC sell-outs at Sandy Park last year (not even for Leinster), and the AP average was a little higher.

Last season:

Sale Sharks 5,568
Saracens 6,141
Quins 8,472
Warriors 7,295
Wasps 7,557
L Irish 7,557
Bath 10,744
L Welsh 7,317

etc. etc..

Heineken Cup
Clermont 9,819
Scarlets 9,258
Leinster 10,198

At least 2k more per game (and tickets are also more expensive).

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:English clubs to hold a crises meeting tomorrow to vote on Europe. Might be a lively meeting.

PRL is split according to some.

as it should be. voted on, by people who have skin in the game.

sounds like the very antithesis of how unions (Camou, Roger Lewis) arrive at decisions

And how does McCafferty & Goze differ from Camou & Lewis? What skin have them?

Isn't Gallacher a carpet salesman?

mccafferty doesnt have a vote. he is not the owner of a club. Goze was president of USA Perpignan until he was elected president of LNR.

who the f is gallacher wrt PRL? i presume you're not referring to RRW Gallacher?

Gibson wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Taken from another forum. Seems that IRB are giving up on ERC
http://www.lerugbynistere.fr/news/h-cup-vers-evolution-fira-remplacer-erc-satisfaire-anglais-francais-toujours-desaccord-0312131138.php
Only taking their word as my French is useless

Lapasset commented recently that IRB were watching over these proposed changes, and also that IRB may be in favour of them. He concluded with re-enforcing IRBs stance of no Club control.
When ERC issued its latest statement it seems that they have allowed for change of name of ERC. Exactly what that means I don't know, but I would doubt very much it has anything to do with a weakening of the Unions position.
Whatever shape the new competition, I hope it's something that the AP teams can sign up to.

Does anyone really care about the ERC as an organisation?  Let's replace it with something with the same governance structure, call it s/thing so the PRL ninnies can put their dummies back in, and we can get on with the Heino

Asbo for President.  

Here here

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:English clubs to hold a crises meeting tomorrow to vote on Europe. Might be a lively meeting.

PRL is split according to some.

as it should be. voted on, by people who have skin in the game.

sounds like the very antithesis of how unions (Camou, Roger Lewis) arrive at decisions

Do you believe Camou, and Lewis, make decisions without consultation, and finding general consensus within their own organisations? The FFR, and WRU, could vote Camou, and Lewis, out, couldn't they? NO
I don't think the meeting is being held simply to uphold the principal of democracy. NO ITS UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLE OF CAPITALISM. Neither do I believe that Wray, and co. always acted with the full agreement of all those they represent. THEY DIDN'T NEED FULL AGREEMENT (AND I PRESUME YOU MEAN PRL, NOT WRAY WHO IS MERELY A NOISY CLUB OWNER) THEY JUST NEEDED A MANDATE. IT'S CALLED DELEGATION. Who knows what way the vote will go though?

No? So a vote of no confidence wouldn't oust them? Sure Steele and Thomas might disagree.

'upholding the principal of capitalism'   Survival of the fittest? Blood on the carpet?

Wray is much more than a noisy club owner when appealing through the media for those of AP not to join with ERC. He isn't exactly shy of sharing his opinion, and in doing so has never been pulled by those at the top of PRL. I can only conclude that he does so with their full consent. Hardly surprising when considering the stuff McCafferty has come out with.

RFU - and they didnt get removed by a vote of no confidence either actually.

Not WRU or FFR. Camou is appointed by dieu almighty. Dodger is untouchable.

quinsforever wrote:RFU - and they didnt get removed by a vote of no confidence either actually.

Not WRU or FFR. Camou is appointed by dieu almighty. Dodger is untouchable.

"The RFU board gave Steele their full support but set up a review of how the elite performance director recruitment process was handled.
That process ultimately led to him parting company with English rugby union's governing body following an emergency board meeting on Thursday evening at which he suffered a vote of no confidence.
A statement issued by the RFU on Friday read: "The board of directors can confirm that John Steele has left the union with immediate effect.
"There is nothing more we can add while discussions are ongoing and we will update further as we are able."
After Thursday's board meeting, which went on until 0100 BST on Friday, it was felt by both parties that he could no longer continue in his role and the RFU are currently meeting to agree the terms of Steele's exit."

BBC Sport 10/06/2011

English rugby attempted to put its chaotic house in order by ditching long-serving heavyweight official Martyn Thomas.

The 67-year-old, who for the last five months has been acting chief executive, will quit all his posts next month, including heading up the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England and Wales
Mail Online 03/11/2011

That was after Thomas surviving to previous attempts to vote him out.

fair enough. i thought he was simply ousted by Martyn Thomas.

(which he effectively was by the way). Camou is the not the equivalent of Steele. he's martyn teflon thomas.

quinsforever wrote:(which he effectively was by the way). Camou is the not the equivalent of Steele. he's martyn teflon thomas.

I've just added a bit to the previous post on Thomas  

thomas resigned after being accused of inappropriate leaking of information to the media, and various other things, by Blackett. not voted out.

point still stands that ffr and wru dont work that way. ffr dont even own their own stadium to run a business around (and hence no CEO). wru - is there anyone in the wru other than dodger?

quinsforever wrote:thomas resigned after being accused of inappropriate leaking of information to the media, and various other things, by Blackett. not voted out.

point still stands that ffr and wru dont work that way. ffr dont even own their own stadium to run a business around (and hence no CEO). wru - is there anyone in the wru other than dodger?

He may have leaked whatever but:

"Thomas accepted during a seven-hour board meeting at Twickenham that he could not survive after furious directors censured him for his ad hoc decisions following England's defeat by France in the World Cup quarter-final.

He wanted former Lions manager Fran Cotton to undertake an independent review of Martin Johnson's malfunctioning elite squad only for that decision to cut across the agreed 'in-house' process involving union, clubs and players.

An independent review of elite rugby will still take place - but only after the internal inquiry led by RFU operations director Rob Andrew, players' union boss Damian Hopley and Mark McCafferty, who heads up the Premiership clubs. "

Thomas had no choice, but to leave. He had faced two votes of no confidence, and accepted he wouldn't have survived a third.

Mark McCafferty eh? What goes around comes around?

quinsforever wrote:thomas resigned after being accused of inappropriate leaking of information to the media, and various other things, by Blackett. not voted out.

point still stands that ffr and wru dont work that way. ffr dont even own their own stadium to run a business around (and hence no CEO). wru - is there anyone in the wru other than dodger?

Not that unusual in France. Most the stadia are Municipal stadia. Toulouse are one of the few clubs who have their own (but usually move big games to the Municipal one).

They still have ticket income from internationals (with no overheads) and then broadcasting rights as well.

"Totalflanker" =

Strikes me that rather than tie in dates the following are probably more pertinent reasons as to why RRW might not join AP:

- regardless of AP money versus RABO, the lions share of RRW cash will still come from the WRU
- WRU will be under pressure from IRB not to agree joining of AP because it will kill rugby in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. Without Wales there are not enough teams for a competitive league. So back to the old debate of 'whatever they are playing it won't be rugby union'
- what would make RRW or the WRU for that matter feel confident they could trust PRL in the future based on the debacle that we are currently going through
- lastly the backdrop of the 6 nations and IRB pressure. Yes its a club matter but if it is going to wreck the international cash cow then not likely"

Absolutely. There's a host of reasons as to why RRW may not be granted their wish to join with AP. I really hope something is sorted there for the regions, but don't have much hope in a solution now. If RRW really want in the AP, if the fans want them in the AP, and if AP want them in the AP, then maybe steps should be taken to accommodate for that. A solution that doesn't damage the Rabo though.
According to one report I've read the AP will also discuss tomorrow the Welsh regions entering AP. A source doesn't really believe the AP will allow it, but it will be good to have some sort of closure on the debate, and an end to speculation. For now anyway

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:thomas resigned after being accused of inappropriate leaking of information to the media, and various other things, by Blackett. not voted out.

point still stands that ffr and wru dont work that way. ffr dont even own their own stadium to run a business around (and hence no CEO). wru - is there anyone in the wru other than dodger?

Not that unusual in France. Most the stadia are Municipal stadia. Toulouse are one of the few clubs who have their own (but usually move big games to the Municipal one).

They still have ticket income from internationals (with no overheads) and then broadcasting rights as well.

And they are in the process of building their own one as we speak

Anyone else think the English clubs should back down?

Scrumpy wrote:Anyone else think the English clubs should back down?

I would like them to rejoin

Scrumpy wrote:Anyone else think the English clubs should back down?

No.

They should be allowed to conduct their business deals with whoever they want. Not be forced into a deal with heineken sky etc year after year when there is more profit opportunity available for them elsewhere.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Anyone else think the English clubs should back down?

No.

They should be allowed to conduct their business deals with whoever they want. Not be forced into a deal with heineken sky etc year after year when there is more profit opportunity available for them elsewhere.

Nobody is forcing them into anything, chunky

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Anyone else think the English clubs should back down?

No.

They should be allowed to conduct their business deals with whoever they want. Not be forced into a deal with heineken sky etc year after year when there is more profit opportunity available for them elsewhere.

Nobody is forcing them into anything, chunky

If they want to play in a truly pan European comp, they have to accept less opportunity in the marketplace. That can't be right.

I wonder what the money will be like without England in the competition? Sure they will get the same from Sky etc with the existing contract but when its up for renewal, without England it will lose perhaps 40-50% of its value.

England will probably come out victorious in the end...  they are too big a market for it not too but at what cost to the national team and can they stick it out for as long as it might take? 1 season out may not be enough... it has to last until the next contract renewal.
It would be like SR without SA.... it supplies about 50% of the revenue for SR which is split evenly 1/3 each. It would kill the game in AUS for sure.

I personally think that the Rabo may have won the battle but they may lose the war... without the funding of an England included market it would literally be an amateur competition.

England have quite a strong league so I don't know if they will suffer too much from not playing in the HC for one season... they play each other so many times in the HC anyhow so whats the difference. Over time though, the longer it goes on, the worse the development for up & coming players.... 2015 won't be a problem.. 2017-2019 maybe.

It could help though as it will obviously attract less foreigners and mean more options for English players to get regular game time.

The England team aren't going to lose sharpness or development in 1 season without HC rugby. If anything they will probably be more fit, more fresh for the 6N and the RWC.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Anyone else think the English clubs should back down?

No.

They should be allowed to conduct their business deals with whoever they want. Not be forced into a deal with heineken sky etc year after year when there is more profit opportunity available for them elsewhere.

Nobody is forcing them into anything, chunky

If they want to play in a  truly pan European comp, they have to accept less opportunity in the marketplace. That can't be right.

Sometimes you have to make tough decisions

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Anyone else think the English clubs should back down?

No.

They should be allowed to conduct their business deals with whoever they want. Not be forced into a deal with heineken sky etc year after year when there is more profit opportunity available for them elsewhere.

Nobody is forcing them into anything, chunky

If they want to play in a  truly pan European comp, they have to accept less opportunity in the marketplace. That can't be right.

More profit? possibly!

More opportunity? Surely not if no one wants to follow their lead. The PRL took a huge risk that seems to have backfired on them at the moment. I would imagine that a good number of the 14 member clubs are pretty angry at this.

Sure to be some interesting headlines after todays meetings.

fa0019 wrote:I wonder what the money will be like without England in the competition? Sure they will get the same from Sky etc with the existing contract but when its up for renewal, without England it will lose perhaps 40-50% of its value.

It's already been admitted that Sky will pay less for the comeptition proposed for next year (without English). It's expected that the lose will be made up by not sharing with the English.

England will probably come out victorious in the end...  they are too big a market for it not too but at what cost to the national team and can they stick it out for as long as it might take? 1 season out may not be enough... it has to last until the next contract renewal.
It would be like SR without SA.... it supplies about 50% of the revenue for SR which is split evenly 1/3 each. It would kill the game in AUS for sure.

I personally think that the Rabo may have won the battle but they may lose the war... without the funding of an England included market it would literally be an amateur competition.

England have quite a strong league so I don't know if they will suffer too much from not playing in the HC for one season... they play each other so many times in the HC anyhow so whats the difference. Over time though, the longer it goes on, the worse the development for up & coming players.... 2015 won't be a problem.. 2017-2019 maybe.

It could help though as it will obviously attract less foreigners and mean more options for English players to get regular game time.

The England team aren't going to lose sharpness or development in 1 season without HC rugby. If anything they will probably be more fit, more fresh for the 6N and the RWC.

England team have no sharpness to lose

http://rugbylaw.blogspot.ie/2013/12/hec-prl-competition-law.html

Barrister's Opinion


Monday, December 2, 2013

HEC, PRL & Competition Law.
Who would have thought competition law would be of such interest to rugby players?

One of the features of the ongoing travails of European rugby has been intense reference to competition law (often under the title of "restraint of trade") by those involved in the discussions.

Various chairmen of the clubs in Premiership Rugby Limited (PRL), the company which runs the Aviva Premiership in England, have been waving the stick of competition law since the Fédération Francaise du Rugby (FFR), the IRB and various other unions have made it clear that the proposed breakaway tournament that PRL wish to set up, the originally-named Rugby Champions Cup, is viewed distinctly less favourably than the European Rugby Cup's (ERC) Heineken European Cup (HEC). The FFR has been reported all along as having turned its face against this newcomer, and the current position would seem to be that the French clubs have fallen into line (although in a dispute which feels as if it is approaching the length as well as complexity of the Thirty Years War, it remains to be seen how definite this is).

This positon led to club chairmen such as Nigel Wray of Saracens coming out with the comment "See you in Court, mate" to the IRB and unions he needed to persuade - which Metternich-like masterpiece of diplomacy suggests he may be somewhat confused about the operative word in the phrase "charm offensive".

There is an irony in this, of course. Sports is indeed subject to competition law (one can see a good background guide HERE); and PRL found that out when subjected to investigation by the Office of Fair Trading in the UK, and, more recently (with the RFU), when the rules about primacy of tenure in grounds as a qualification for promotion into the AP were challenged, successfully, by London Welsh via the RFU's own disciplinary systems.

The jurisprudence of the European Courts, referred to in that London Welsh decision, is clear that each incidence will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, with a recognition that, while they are subject to competition law, considerable margin of appreciation afforded to governing bodies like the unions who are looking at the benefit of the sport as a whole, as one can see in the MOTOE case about the organisation of Greek motorcycling. So, in Meca Medina, a case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where two athletes tried to have anti-doping rules struck down as affecting competition, the ECJ stressed that, while governing bodies are subject to competition law, purely sporting rules are not, and each case will be dealt with individually. So, it is hard to be definitive in advance about whether decisions where there is a mixed element of purely sporting organisation and the commercial side of sport will be anti-competitive, still less be so confident as to, in effect, dare the French state to back up its legislation whereby sporting bodies are bound by law by the decisions of their governing bodies.

The further irony is this: PRL has apparently contractually committed all its members to play in a new tournament which will be broadcast by BT, and to have no truck with an ERC-run competition (recently confirmed by Simon Cohen, CEO of the European and English giants, Leicester). It is an economic actor, in (by its own admission in the London Welsh decision) a dominant position in the English market - and it is restraining competition about which clubs can play what across Europe as a result of that committment. It is not a governing body, and attracts no margin of appreciation for its actions. And the recent reports from the Commission about the cartelisation of football are not what one might term sympathetic to the club side of the club-v-country arguments. Certainly, one doubts the Top14 would have relished attention being drawn to the acquisition habits of some of its clubs by being sucked into a case of this kind just as it is in the throes of negotiating a new broadcast deal of its own. This is all the more so  when litigation of this kind (involving assessment of what the relevant market is, the nature and shape of the market, and all sorts of other detailed examinations and documentation such as keep the lever-arch-file and banker's box business so buoyant) is of a length and complexity as could swallow half a playing career to resolve.

Even more pointedly, the European Commission, when examining the sale of broadcasting rights in the UEFA Champions League decision, laid down basic ground rules for the sale of exclusive broadcasting rights by an organising body to a broadcaster. These would include an open tender process - and a duration of no more than three years. BT Sport's deal with PRL to broadcast the Aviva Premiership - the foundation stone of the whole dispute, and the bread-and-butter of PRL clubs - is for four years.

On which note, one looks at the announcement (in Spanish) of some €14.5m in fines for selling exclusive broadcast rights in Spanish for four, as opposed to three, years - HERE - as well as the recent Commission announcement into the basic concept of selling exclusive territorial broadcast rights (as dealt with in THIS excellent blogpost from Blackstone Chambers), looks at that aspect of the BT Sports deal, and at the very least check wonder as to the footing of those at one stage so eager to litigate.

And it is at this point one is reminded why lawyers so rarely use phrases like "see you in Court" outside of the pages of fiction, and instead spend so much of their careers trying to settle cases outside of Court instead. Before telling someone you'll see them in Court, it it is always best to be entirely sure there's no way they could be happy to see you there, too.

Sin é Sky's deal with ERC is fine how as that is also for 4 years & exclusive ?

broadlandboy wrote:Sin é Sky's deal with ERC is fine how as that is also for 4 years & exclusive ?

It hasn't come into being yet. More than likely will have to change it to 3.

Sin é wrote:http://rugbylaw.blogspot.ie/2013/12/hec-prl-competition-law.html

Barrister's Opinion


Monday, December 2, 2013

HEC, PRL & Competition Law.
Who would have thought competition law would be of such interest to rugby players?

One of the features of the ongoing travails of European rugby has been intense reference to competition law (often under the title of "restraint of trade") by those involved in the discussions.

Various chairmen of the clubs in Premiership Rugby Limited (PRL), the company which runs the Aviva Premiership in England, have been waving the stick of competition law since the Fédération Francaise du Rugby (FFR), the IRB and various other unions have made it clear that the proposed breakaway tournament that PRL wish to set up, the originally-named Rugby Champions Cup, is viewed distinctly less favourably than the European Rugby Cup's (ERC) Heineken European Cup (HEC). The FFR has been reported all along as having turned its face against this newcomer, and the current position would seem to be that the French clubs have fallen into line (although in a dispute which feels as if it is approaching the length as well as complexity of the Thirty Years War, it remains to be seen how definite this is).

This positon led to club chairmen such as Nigel Wray of Saracens coming out with the comment "See you in Court, mate" to the IRB and unions he needed to persuade - which Metternich-like masterpiece of diplomacy suggests he may be somewhat confused about the operative word in the phrase "charm offensive".

There is an irony in this, of course. Sports is indeed subject to competition law (one can see a good background guide HERE); and PRL found that out when subjected to investigation by the Office of Fair Trading in the UK, and, more recently (with the RFU), when the rules about primacy of tenure in grounds as a qualification for promotion into the AP were challenged, successfully, by London Welsh via the RFU's own disciplinary systems.

The jurisprudence of the European Courts, referred to in that London Welsh decision, is clear that each incidence will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, with a recognition that, while they are subject to competition law, considerable margin of appreciation afforded to governing bodies like the unions who are looking at the benefit of the sport as a whole, as one can see in the MOTOE case about the organisation of Greek motorcycling. So, in Meca Medina, a case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where two athletes tried to have anti-doping rules struck down as affecting competition, the ECJ stressed that, while governing bodies are subject to competition law, purely sporting rules are not, and each case will be dealt with individually. So, it is hard to be definitive in advance about whether decisions where there is a mixed element of purely sporting organisation and the commercial side of sport will be anti-competitive, still less be so confident as to, in effect, dare the French state to back up its legislation whereby sporting bodies are bound by law by the decisions of their governing bodies.

The further irony is this: PRL has apparently contractually committed all its members to play in a new tournament which will be broadcast by BT, and to have no truck with an ERC-run competition (recently confirmed by Simon Cohen, CEO of the European and English giants, Leicester). It is an economic actor, in (by its own admission in the London Welsh decision) a dominant position in the English market - and it is restraining competition about which clubs can play what across Europe as a result of that committment. It is not a governing body, and attracts no margin of appreciation for its actions. And the recent reports from the Commission about the cartelisation of football are not what one might term sympathetic to the club side of the club-v-country arguments. Certainly, one doubts the Top14 would have relished attention being drawn to the acquisition habits of some of its clubs by being sucked into a case of this kind just as it is in the throes of negotiating a new broadcast deal of its own. This is all the more so  when litigation of this kind (involving assessment of what the relevant market is, the nature and shape of the market, and all sorts of other detailed examinations and documentation such as keep the lever-arch-file and banker's box business so buoyant) is of a length and complexity as could swallow half a playing career to resolve.

Even more pointedly, the European Commission, when examining the sale of broadcasting rights in the UEFA Champions League decision, laid down basic ground rules for the sale of exclusive broadcasting rights by an organising body to a broadcaster. These would include an open tender process - and a duration of no more than three years. BT Sport's deal with PRL to broadcast the Aviva Premiership - the foundation stone of the whole dispute, and the bread-and-butter of PRL clubs - is for four years.

On which note, one looks at the announcement (in Spanish) of some €14.5m in fines for selling exclusive broadcast rights in Spanish for four, as opposed to three, years - HERE - as well as the recent Commission announcement into the basic concept of selling exclusive territorial broadcast rights (as dealt with in THIS excellent blogpost from Blackstone Chambers), looks at that aspect of the BT Sports deal, and at the very least check wonder as to the footing of those at one stage so eager to litigate.

And it is at this point one is reminded why lawyers so rarely use phrases like "see you in Court" outside of the pages of fiction, and instead spend so much of their careers trying to settle cases outside of Court instead. Before telling someone you'll see them in Court, it it is always best to be entirely sure there's no way they could be happy to see you there, too.

Hilarious!  In seriousness tho, it sounds like a prem team could elect to rejoin the Heino then and challenge PRL?

I dont think that's possible ASBO- as all the AP teams have signed into the BT exclusive deal- so its either everyone getting out of it or none

And it wouldn't be the clubs that argued against the 4 year thing. It would be another broadcaster you would think.

The comments from the PRL, that I've seen, were if the competition was not sanctioned by the unions/IRB then they would look at their reasoning and consider legal action.

The French guys were "we're doing it, you can't stop us". Wray's been talking out his rear end (as he always does and generally it's rebelling AGAINST the PRL and the cap, etc).

It was the spainish 'watchdog' that fined the Spanish clubs.

BUt after reading about it- I think as long as highlights are sold then the PRL's and the ERC's contracts are fine

fa0019 wrote:I wonder what the money will be like without England in the competition? Sure they will get the same from Sky etc with the existing contract but when its up for renewal, without England it will lose perhaps 40-50% of its value.

England will probably come out victorious in the end...  they are too big a market for it not too but at what cost to the national team and can they stick it out for as long as it might take? 1 season out may not be enough... it has to last until the next contract renewal.
It would be like SR without SA.... it supplies about 50% of the revenue for SR which is split evenly 1/3 each. It would kill the game in AUS for sure.

I personally think that the Rabo may have won the battle but they may lose the war... without the funding of an England included market it would literally be an amateur competition.

England have quite a strong league so I don't know if they will suffer too much from not playing in the HC for one season... they play each other so many times in the HC anyhow so whats the difference. Over time though, the longer it goes on, the worse the development for up & coming players.... 2015 won't be a problem.. 2017-2019 maybe.

It could help though as it will obviously attract less foreigners and mean more options for English players to get regular game time.

The England team aren't going to lose sharpness or development in 1 season without HC rugby. If anything they will probably be more fit, more fresh for the 6N and the RWC.

Lose 40-50% of its value. Not a hope. Sky are still going to broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK (which is England, Scotland, Wales & NI). You seriously think that no one is going to watch it in England now because there are no English teams in it? You seriously think that English people won't be watching Jonny playing for Toulon (and what is likely to be a lot more English players) playing in France over the next couple of years?

The Heineken Cup is broadcast in New Zealand and they have no teams in it.

It will be watched - there is a massive Irish population here(probably bigger than Ireland !!)

But it will off course be worse off.

Less big games. The stock will fall, but we all know the truth.

WE will all be playing in it again come a year or twos time.

And then in 7 years time the same problem will happen again

Sin é wrote:Lose 40-50% of its value. Not a hope. Sky are still going to broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK (which is England, Scotland, Wales & NI). You seriously think that no one is going to watch it in England now because there are no English teams in it? You seriously think that English people won't be watching Jonny playing for Toulon (and what is likely to be a lot more English players) playing in France over the next couple of years?

The Heineken Cup is broadcast in New Zealand and they have no teams in it.

I wonder how many English rugby fans dropped Sky when ESPN started showing twice as many league games as Sky? I wonder how many dropped Sky when BT started showing 3 a week and Sky lost them all. I wonder how many would drop it without any English comeptitions on it?

I had Sky, then ESPN and Sky. I've dropped both and got BT Sports (which I think comes with ESPN but never tried to watch it).

Sure some people will have both and they will tune in. But if your main interest is English rugby and you had to choose one which would it be? The one with a few LV games or the one with half the league games and potentially a new cup?

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I wonder what the money will be like without England in the competition? Sure they will get the same from Sky etc with the existing contract but when its up for renewal, without England it will lose perhaps 40-50% of its value.

England will probably come out victorious in the end...  they are too big a market for it not too but at what cost to the national team and can they stick it out for as long as it might take? 1 season out may not be enough... it has to last until the next contract renewal.
It would be like SR without SA.... it supplies about 50% of the revenue for SR which is split evenly 1/3 each. It would kill the game in AUS for sure.

I personally think that the Rabo may have won the battle but they may lose the war... without the funding of an England included market it would literally be an amateur competition.

England have quite a strong league so I don't know if they will suffer too much from not playing in the HC for one season... they play each other so many times in the HC anyhow so whats the difference. Over time though, the longer it goes on, the worse the development for up & coming players.... 2015 won't be a problem.. 2017-2019 maybe.

It could help though as it will obviously attract less foreigners and mean more options for English players to get regular game time.

The England team aren't going to lose sharpness or development in 1 season without HC rugby. If anything they will probably be more fit, more fresh for the 6N and the RWC.

Lose 40-50% of its value. Not a hope. Sky are still going to broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK (which is England, Scotland, Wales & NI). You seriously think that no one is going to watch it in England now because there are no English teams in it? You seriously think that English people won't be watching Jonny playing for Toulon (and what is likely to be a lot more English players) playing in France over the next couple of years?

The Heineken Cup is broadcast in New Zealand and they have no teams in it.

an H-Cup without english teams would lose at least 50% of its value. for two very simple reasons. if the english clubs are not coming back then english fans will not watch it, and french clubs wont even bother to turn up without the english clubs involved. this is crystal clear. so maybe next season it may hold some interest, but after that it will become about as commercially valuable as the LV Cup if the english clubs arent in it and french clubs enters their 3rd string teams (top14 tv rights are expected to be worth at least EUR65m as that is the deal they just turned down from Canal+ for renewal, against EUR12m the french get from HC with the English clubs in it!).

i would argue that if the english clubs are permanently out of H-Cup it would lose more like 75% of its commercial value to a broadcaster.

In the long run it would die. But I wouldn't expect the viewing figures to substantially fall. Because they are so bad anyway.

The point is more about where it could be in 5 years with everyone as opposed to what it will be in 5 years without the English.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I wonder what the money will be like without England in the competition? Sure they will get the same from Sky etc with the existing contract but when its up for renewal, without England it will lose perhaps 40-50% of its value.

England will probably come out victorious in the end...  they are too big a market for it not too but at what cost to the national team and can they stick it out for as long as it might take? 1 season out may not be enough... it has to last until the next contract renewal.
It would be like SR without SA.... it supplies about 50% of the revenue for SR which is split evenly 1/3 each. It would kill the game in AUS for sure.

I personally think that the Rabo may have won the battle but they may lose the war... without the funding of an England included market it would literally be an amateur competition.

England have quite a strong league so I don't know if they will suffer too much from not playing in the HC for one season... they play each other so many times in the HC anyhow so whats the difference. Over time though, the longer it goes on, the worse the development for up & coming players.... 2015 won't be a problem.. 2017-2019 maybe.

It could help though as it will obviously attract less foreigners and mean more options for English players to get regular game time.

The England team aren't going to lose sharpness or development in 1 season without HC rugby. If anything they will probably be more fit, more fresh for the 6N and the RWC.

Lose 40-50% of its value. Not a hope. Sky are still going to broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK (which is England, Scotland, Wales & NI). You seriously think that no one is going to watch it in England now because there are no English teams in it? You seriously think that English people won't be watching Jonny playing for Toulon (and what is likely to be a lot more English players) playing in France over the next couple of years?

The Heineken Cup is broadcast in New Zealand and they have no teams in it.

an H-Cup without english teams would lose at least 50% of its value. for two very simple reasons. if the english clubs are not coming back then english fans will not watch it, and french clubs wont even bother to turn up without the english clubs involved. this is crystal clear. so maybe next season it may hold some interest, but after that it will become about as commercially valuable as the LV Cup if the english clubs arent in it and french clubs enters their 3rd string teams (top14 tv rights are expected to be worth at least EUR65m as that is the deal they just turned down from Canal+ for renewal, against EUR12m the french get from HC with the English clubs in it!).

i would argue that if the english clubs are permanently out of H-Cup it would lose more like 75% of its commercial value to a broadcaster.

I'm afraid that is absolutely not the case  

We don't know what would happen. What is the point guessing?

If Sky have said they'll give enough so that no-one loses out (except the English) then that's what would happen. That's the suggestion so far so we'll have to wait and see.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I wonder what the money will be like without England in the competition? Sure they will get the same from Sky etc with the existing contract but when its up for renewal, without England it will lose perhaps 40-50% of its value.

England will probably come out victorious in the end...  they are too big a market for it not too but at what cost to the national team and can they stick it out for as long as it might take? 1 season out may not be enough... it has to last until the next contract renewal.
It would be like SR without SA.... it supplies about 50% of the revenue for SR which is split evenly 1/3 each. It would kill the game in AUS for sure.

I personally think that the Rabo may have won the battle but they may lose the war... without the funding of an England included market it would literally be an amateur competition.

England have quite a strong league so I don't know if they will suffer too much from not playing in the HC for one season... they play each other so many times in the HC anyhow so whats the difference. Over time though, the longer it goes on, the worse the development for up & coming players.... 2015 won't be a problem.. 2017-2019 maybe.

It could help though as it will obviously attract less foreigners and mean more options for English players to get regular game time.

The England team aren't going to lose sharpness or development in 1 season without HC rugby. If anything they will probably be more fit, more fresh for the 6N and the RWC.

Lose 40-50% of its value. Not a hope. Sky are still going to broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK (which is England, Scotland, Wales & NI). You seriously think that no one is going to watch it in England now because there are no English teams in it? You seriously think that English people won't be watching Jonny playing for Toulon (and what is likely to be a lot more English players) playing in France over the next couple of years?

The Heineken Cup is broadcast in New Zealand and they have no teams in it.

an H-Cup without english teams would lose at least 50% of its value. for two very simple reasons. if the english clubs are not coming back then english fans will not watch it, and french clubs wont even bother to turn up without the english clubs involved. this is crystal clear. so maybe next season it may hold some interest, but after that it will become about as commercially valuable as the LV Cup if the english clubs arent in it and french clubs enters their 3rd string teams (top14 tv rights are expected to be worth at least EUR65m as that is the deal they just turned down from Canal+ for renewal, against EUR12m the french get from HC with the English clubs in it!).

i would argue that if the english clubs are permanently out of H-Cup it would lose more like 75% of its commercial value to a broadcaster.

I'm afraid that is absolutely not the case  

you converting ASBO?

do u watch LV matches?

Converting? To what?  I know plenty of fans of English clubs that will continue to watch the Heino

Occasionally re LV=

HammerofThunor wrote:We don't know what would happen. What is the point guessing?

If Sky have said they'll give enough so that no-one loses out (except the English) then that's what would happen. That's the suggestion so far so we'll have to wait and see.

thats for 1 year. and based on the presumption of getting the english back in thereafter. no need to be a rocket scientist to see what would happen to the quality of the competition, and that is what determines its ultimate commercial value.

who would get SKY to watch the LV cup?

Tv broadcasters like BT see a huge future in rugby union.

But in fairness it's only potential at the moment.

It is all about the long game.

Sky will only play ball for the short term without the English .

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Converting? To what?  I know plenty of fans of English clubs that will continue to watch the Heino

Occasionally re LV=

my point is that the heino, denuded of english clubs permanently, would be viewed as developmental by top14 so would become about as exciting as the LV. and that is what will determine its commercial value, not how many countries are in it.

At the moment, the dominant position is that of the IRB/FFR/LNR supported FIRA-AER Cup, with ERC (and its Sky contract) ceasing to be in June 2015.

We may know more of PRL's response today (and the pendulum may swing), but the 4 Unions (& RFU) have been very quiet (and they may yet be able to swing the pendulum in their preferred direction).

If Lapasset has delivered a fait accompli, then I daresay that Euro Cup TV broadcasting will be put out to competitive tender (unless PRL can drag BT into the equation unchallenged). Who knows how the TV landscape will have changed by then - perhaps BeIN will expand its euro horizons?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Converting? To what?  I know plenty of fans of English clubs that will continue to watch the Heino

Occasionally re LV=

You are not thinking asbo.

It's not about a few old school in the market place it's about growth

All probably true. But drops of 70% or whatever are guesswork. And would heavily depend if the English started something else and how successful it was.

As someone who only watches rugby (or at least it's the only thing I'd pay a subscription to watch) there is no way I would subscribe to Sky Sports for the LV, Pro12, S15, RC and HEC (without English) unless I had a massive pay rise and I couldn't be bother to go to the pub for the English AI. BT is a no brainer, cheaper and English league games (which is main interest). Especially since most of the Pro12 is on FTA.

Am I normal, average, typically? Not really in most things but no idea for this.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:At the moment, the dominant position is that of the IRB/FFR/LNR supported FIRA-AER Cup, with ERC (and its Sky contract) ceasing to be in June 2015.

We may know more of PRL's response today (and the pendulum may swing), but the 4 Unions (& RFU) have been very quiet (and they may yet be able to swing the pendulum in their preferred direction).

If Lapasset has delivered a fait accompli, then I daresay that Euro Cup TV broadcasting will be put out to competitive tender (unless PRL can drag BT into the equation unchallenged). Who knows how the TV landscape will have changed by then - perhaps BeIN will expand its euro horizons?

Dub, do we know any details about this? - would be interested in seeing them. You going on Sat? - v exciting

mystiroakey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Converting? To what?  I know plenty of fans of English clubs that will continue to watch the Heino

Occasionally re LV=

You are not thinking asbo.

It's not about a few old school in the market place it's about growth

You may be right, strokey, but I was simply responding to a specific point

no details exist yet ASBO. i posted Lapasset's comments from a Q&A session yday i think on this thread. He told FIRA-AER they need to come to him with a proposal for how to run all european club competitions. so clearly very early days. But the fact that Lapasset made it clear ERC is history (the wicked witch is dead ) and clubs need more involvement in the commercial aspect of leagues, does hold some hope of getting PRL clubs back into the fold from 2015.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Converting? To what?  I know plenty of fans of English clubs that will continue to watch the Heino

Occasionally re LV=

You are not thinking asbo.

It's not about a few old school in the market place it's about growth

You may be right, strokey, but I was simply responding to a specific point

sorry you are probably thinking. However i think people are concentrating to much on the present Yet the broadcasters are NOT interested in the present but the potential of club RU.

Even though a ERC could effectively work without the english and make a few quid- it would be stagnant.

Lapasset also made it very clear that the english clubs need to be involved. which is a polite slap on the wrist to Camou as regards his recent anti-english rhetoric.

 

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:At the moment, the dominant position is that of the IRB/FFR/LNR supported FIRA-AER Cup, with ERC (and its Sky contract) ceasing to be in June 2015.

We may know more of PRL's response today (and the pendulum may swing), but the 4 Unions (& RFU) have been very quiet (and they may yet be able to swing the pendulum in their preferred direction).

If Lapasset has delivered a fait accompli, then I daresay that Euro Cup TV broadcasting will be put out to competitive tender (unless PRL can drag BT into the equation unchallenged). Who knows how the TV landscape will have changed by then - perhaps BeIN will expand its euro horizons?

Dub, do we know any details about this? - would be interested in seeing them.  You going on Sat? - v exciting

Re FIRA-AER Cup - wot Quins said. Principle only, no details and none expected in the near future. I should correct myself - Lapasset may have put his weight behind FIRA-AER, but its an assumption that IRB are united behind him. Given it emerged shortly after the IRB Congress, it's a fairly safe assumption, though.

I'll be there on Sat - got the last 2 contiguous seats in South stand, didn't expect tickets to go so fast.