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

by Sin é Tue 03 Dec 2013, 5:42 pm

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).

by quinsforever Mon 09 Dec 2013, 11:42 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:Champions League has more than 50 countries competing in and trying to compete in

That's a big number............... ; it'll be unwieldy!!! - but let's do it then.

But of course, the harsh reality is that when you and Dubbelyew talk about an expanded competition, you of course mean a tiered competition which again announces the idea that some nations will again be more equal than others.

There is always a solution that would mean five or six English and French clubs get to do the BIG one!
It's like a dice that keeps landing on six - no matter how you throw it or from what height. Always six apiece for the Franglos - and the rest divided out amongst ever decreasing Leagues of importance that nobody cares about in European TV viewing terms.

lets throw it all open. success of the respective league (weighted by results of all teams) determines on a rolling average basis the number of spots. and there has to be pre-qualifying tournaments for non-6N coutries with serious financial upside to them if they make it into the pool stages.

no more blydi closed shop.

by SecretFly Mon 09 Dec 2013, 11:47 pm

A new Europe shouldn't rely on past performances as that maintains the position of the top at the top just as mucho bucks comes in with enlargement. When mucho bucks come in, that means even more money going to the top and allowing it the resources to stay there....permanently...pretty much like football.

The dice. The dice keeps reading 6, quins. Anyway of planning a competition where the dice doesn't come into play for the English and French?

by SecretFly Mon 09 Dec 2013, 11:52 pm

Likes I've said numerous times before - force Top14 to shave 2 sides off so that they become a 12 team League like the others. Then decide the 20 for HEC by actual top 20 best sides comparing league placements across the three leagues.

That means all teams in all leagues have to play looking over their shoulder at the expolits of competitors in the other leagues. Teams need to perform always but the guarantee of auto places for any sides goes - and certainly the specific guarantees of 6 each for English and French sides go. They have to compete for them in real terms - we all do. Top sides based on points scored, tries etc.

by Guest Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:08 am

Just read a Torygraph article by Mick Cleary:

Leinster and Connacht's victories merely highlight the decline in quality in the Heineken Cup

Why are some surprised we ridicule some of these so called sports journalists? The piece is so obviously a bitter rant that I laughed.

It has to be that these guys will say anything controversial, no matter how blatantly false, just to get noticed.

by HammerofThunor Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:21 am

Munchkin wrote:Just read a Torygraph article by Mick Cleary:

Leinster and Connacht's victories merely highlight the decline in quality in the Heineken Cup

Why are some surprised we ridicule some of these so called sports journalists? The piece is so obviously a bitter rant that I laughed.

It has to be that these guys will say anything controversial, no matter how blatantly false, just to get noticed.

That's the media. And we rely on these 'professionals' for information. Edit: it's censored

ing frightening

by SecretFly Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:22 am

Leinster and Connacht played too fast I reckon. That's always a nuisance factor for slow eyed observers in TV land - and we all know how impotent them folks are in the big scheme of things.

Lesson being - don't irritate audiences with fast play on lazy afternoons. Lesson learned Mick. We'll pass that advice on to the lads.

by **Notch** Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:24 am

Well certainly there is a worrying decline in the quality of French sides... turns out there's more to building a successful team than throwing money at it. They used to be better.

The question as to why heavy investment isn't actually making better teams is a big one for the French. Toulon were miserably poor at the weekend as well. Their teams were better when they had more homegrown players who had come through together, instead of thrown together teams of disinterested mercenaries.

The standard of all European leagues is quite poor imo. We often hear it about the Pro12 from our "esteemed friends" from France and England, but any given week in their leagues is much the same. French rugby in particular is forward-dominated, underskilled and uncompelling. Even the star names on the roster don't change that much.

I don't see Clearys article as a PRL puff piece, pretty scathing about some very big French and English sides. Who do look poor and do deserve to be slaughtered for it. I didn't see Saints, but Toulouse were very, very bad. I say that as someone who was jumping around the room when the final whistle went. Someone has sh!t in Clearys cornflakes though.

The assertion England are missing nothing next year is a bit weird though, as if they were the dominant force. They aren't doing amazingly themselves. Their own league isn't better at all- the only teams he praises and the Irish ones, who they won't be playing against. So I don't get it.

by SecretFly Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:32 am

Toulouse and others were better when other sides were much much poorer. So I think it's more a case of relativism.

There was a time Toulouse had few challengers - and looking tasty in that climate is easy. Much harder for any sides to look tasty in today's world where space is much more difficult to find. The games become slog-fests because the defences have improved all through all leagues.

So rather than thinking everyone just got very bad very quickly - no, everyone just got much more professional about closing down opportunities and many games become stalemate chess games.

Having said that!!! - that's all just generalised crap really Wink

as there still are classic games all over the place - in Heineken Cup too. And there'll be a few before it runs its course this season too.

by **Notch** Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:35 am

No, but Toulouse really used to be better. Noves has lost the plot. Not everyone has gotten bad overnight, but Toulouse are certainly not what they used to be...

by SecretFly Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:39 am

Maybe Noves has just got tired and Toulouse need to................. say bye? Perhaps a comparison might be Trappatoni!

But I still say that Toulouse team would still have pummelled a mid to low ranking Pro12 side a few years ago. They haven't changed so much - coaching standards have improved in Pro12 though.

Sorry, another edit! And not of course forgetting that the pummelling I mention might just be delivered to poor Connacht next week!

by Guest Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:40 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Just read a Torygraph article by Mick Cleary:

Leinster and Connacht's victories merely highlight the decline in quality in the Heineken Cup

Why are some surprised we ridicule some of these so called sports journalists? The piece is so obviously a bitter rant that I laughed.

It has to be that these guys will say anything controversial, no matter how blatantly false, just to get noticed.

That's the media. And we rely on these 'professionals' for information. Edit: it's ing frightening

Absolutely. It is frightening. The sad truth is that articles such as this can alter readers perceptions. Another thing is that readers would like to be able to trust that what they read is at least fairy accurate, and without having to go fact-finding to ensure it is. Isn't that what subscribers pay the journalists for?
Anywho, glad to see all sides agreeing in the comments section for a change Hug

by **Notch** Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:44 am

SecretFly wrote:Maybe Noves has just got tired and Toulouse need to................. say bye? Perhaps a comparison might be Trappatoni!

But I still say that Toulouse team would still have pummelled a mid to low ranking Pro12 side a few years ago. They haven't changed so much - coaching standards have improved in Pro12 though.

Yeah they probably would have been able to bully Connacht up front and get by with a bit of individual brilliance. Connacht obviously produced outstanding line speed and worked very hard, and that exposed the lack of tactical nous they have in their halves to figure out how to change the gameplan. But they used to have actual, decent halfbacks and a backline that knew each other well, whether they were well coached or not- there was a degree of fluency there.

by niwatts Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:22 am

Leinster and Connacht's victories merely highlight the decline in quality in the Heineken Cup

The victories for Leinster and Connacht aside, the quality and excitement on offer in this season’s Heineken Cup is as poor as any in recent memory

The English clubs will not be missing out on much when they boycott Europe next year.

The standard in this season’s competition has been as poor as any in recent memory. There have been few clashes of real thunder, of snarl as well as of style, games that embed themselves in the memory, vie for attention in the mind’s eye with the sort of turbocharged Test matches that have just swamped our sensibilities.

Perhaps the rest will do Stuart Lancaster’s boys more good than harm in the run-up to the 2015 Rugby World Cup. There is always a silver lining.

Of course there are exceptions. Yet even these isolated examples – Leinster’s evisceration of Northampton on Saturday, Connacht’s tumbrels rolling out of Toulouse on Sunday evening bearing the heads of rugby’s aristocrats – only emphasise what a drop off in quality there has been.

Connacht are bottom of the pile in the Rabo Pro 12, with only one win. Toulouse were shocking, Connacht underdog snappers. But come on. Will these sort of results and performances have the southern hemisphere quaking as to the status of the Heineken Cup set against Super Rugby? Unlikely.

Northampton were wimps by comparison with the lot who carried the Saints’ colours so splendidly in that unforgettable 2011 Heineken Cup final against the self-same Irish opposition.

There was no competitive grandeur in Saturday’s rerun. It was an exhibition as well as an embarrassment. Leinster deserve all the plaudits headed their way and head coach Matt O’Connor is to be congratulated for the seamless transition made from the previous Joe Schmidt regime. But they did not beat very much on the field at Franklin’s Gardens. So much for the supposed top-end quality of the Aviva Premiership? Correct. There are no laurels to be rested on there.

As you took in matches from round Europe at the weekend, there were few gasps of wonder. Racing Metro, the Parisian moneybags showcasing their brand in the western reaches of Nantes? An absolute rabble, little better than a third XV going through their paces as Harlequins ran them ragged to finish comfortable winners. Compared to Quins’ epic encounters a few years back against Stade Francais, this was ordinary fare.

Perpignan against Munster? The Irish province came through convincingly to win 36-8 but this was no Thomond Park classic with tribalism at full roar. Munster are wonderfully spirited European campaigners but let us not pretend that they are a match yet for previous vintages.

The French sides are looking wan and disinterested so Lord only knows what their commitment will be like next season when the Anglo-Saxon foe has disappeared.

Even Montpellier’s effort at Welford Road on Sunday was less than the full ticket. It was a curious match, one that summed up this season’s malaise. There were some terrific tries, Miles Benjamin’s brace for example, but some dreadful defending. The game also lacked true bite. It was sprightly but never wholly engaging.

Toulon at Exeter? Well, if that is what a fat chequebook buys you, then you have to ask if is worth it. The defending European champions were crabbed and lumpy.

The Irish sides enjoyed a great return and fair play to them. Ulster are an emerging force, Leinster a class act, Munster are Munster while Connacht have got their due reward for refusing to bend the knee. As for the Scots and Italians – well.

This is supposed to be an exalted level of competition. Never mind the flags and the fun. This is sub-Test rugby, Europe’s finishing school. It has not looked that way. Certainly if the northern hemisphere intends to mount a challenge to its southern cousins at the 2015 Rugby World Cup, it needs to up its game. The skill levels on show have been patchy, Leinster’s masterclass, with Brian O’Driscoll in his pomp, excepted.

The ongoing row suits no one. Both sides need each other. Even if you care to argue that England’s players will be disadvantaged in the build-up to 2015 then the flip argument applies to the Celts and French. It is in no one’s interests to have a continued face-off. The English power brokers need to conjure something. There is little point in exotic-location games.

Competition needs to be meaningful, not a Harlem Globetrotters experience. As for those who believe that the respective BT Sport and Sky Sports contracts will prove an insurmountable obstacle, my bet is that the broadcasters will come to an agreement. They, too, need each other for their moving-picture wallpaper in homes and bars round the world.

What they should insist on for all our sakes is a rise in quality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/european-rugby/10506926/Leinster-and-Connachts-victories-merely-highlight-the-decline-in-quality-in-the-Heineken-Cup.html

by SecretFly Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:48 am

"The Irish sides enjoyed a great return and fair play to them. Ulster are an emerging force, Leinster a class act, Munster are Munster while Connacht have got their due reward for refusing to bend the knee. As for the Scots and Italians – well."

Well?

Well what?

Well they're down in the bottom rungs with Saints, Ospreys, Exeter Chiefs, Scarlets, Racing Metro, Montpellier and Perpignan?

That's three French sides, two English sides, two Welsh sides and two Italian sides that have won only one or less games.

So "well" what? Why isolate the Scottish and Italians? Not everyone can be top. If there are top sides in a pool then sure as day is day, there'll be sides in the bottom.

So "well" what? Well, the English down there come from a good League pedigree but the Scots and Italians.....well? Is that the 'well' you mean Mick?

Well, well indeed. Laugh

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:55 am

lets just wait to see who goes through before we unleash maximum venom shall we?

many a slip twixt cup and lip...an all that

by TJ Tue 10 Dec 2013, 7:00 am

There are a lot of bitter and angry journalists who swallowed the PRL line and now look very foolish .

by geoff998rugby Tue 10 Dec 2013, 11:04 am

Stuart Barnes view on the matter.

" Evening Stuart, I know you may not want to discuss this but will Stuart Lancaster be concerned about England clubs not playing in Europe next year ahead of the world cup. I have always believed that the Heineken Cup is a step below Test rugby and surely that will hurt England's players not playing at this level?Jack Goodyer
STUART REPLIES: Stuart Lancaster will be hugely concerned about the non participation of the English clubs this. You won't hear Mark McCafferty say so but the PRL seems ready to damage England's campaign build up in the battle for control of the game "

by Pete330v2 Tue 10 Dec 2013, 11:20 am

I prefer the stance of Planet Rugby on the subject:

"In case you also missed it, pretty much all 24 clubs involved this weekend served up a monumental reminder of what we paupered paying punters are no longer going to be able to enjoy if the suits at Premier Rugby get their way - and their cash.
Starting with the frantic intensity of Cardiff v Glasgow, burning on through the brilliance of Harlequins, Leinster and Clermont, rising to a crescendo in Munster's annihilation of Perpignan and Connacht's extraordinary achievement in Toulouse before the fanfare finale of the eight-try extravaganza in Leicester, this weekend of Heineken Cup action was classic fare.
The best bit? All the smarting beaten teams get the chance to put it all right on home turf next weekend... just imagine the Aime-Giral baying for revenge, Toulouse's big black-and-red machine marching towards the Sportsground and the Montpellier fans hoping their team escapes the last-chance saloon at home to Leicester...
Now that the French have decided to do the decent thing and at least remain committed to a pan-European competition for one more year, giving all parties a bit of time to come up with something coherent (and, perhaps, time for the Premier Rugby plan to fall as flat as it now sounds), we do at least have hope for next season. A competition without the English and French would have been a no-hoper, without the English is not great, but it is semi-palatable.

The news will have been a tremendous boost to Wales, who can now be a little more concrete in their planning for what to do with their best players in the knowledge that there will be a viable European compeititon next season. Sam Warburton and Leigh Halfpenny may yet be able to stay. Ireland's HR office will also have bulged at the walls with a sigh of relief. Those in Scotland and Italy will have positively blown out.
Meanwhile, England's clubs look desperately isolated. They remain committed to a now appallingly hollow-sounding Rugby Champions Cup, one which sponsors BT has been noticeably absent in commenting about. It's definitely not the product they committed the money to though. The impetus is now elsewhere and Premier Rugby's greedy suits have only themselves to blame.
Hope now springs. Let the English do what they want. Intriguingly though, Premier Rugby Chief Mark McCafferty has always said the decision rests with the clubs... surely even the most battle-hardened of club owners and coaches can see that weekends like this one past can only serve to make their rugby teams better, not worse. If the English were to at least do as the French have done, not only would it be that wonderful rarity: a decision made on the basis of improving rugby, but it would also give the game's biggest stakeholders - the fans - what they need and love.

Nobody would think any worse of the English for doing as the French. They might not even gloat."

by ulster_on_the_up Tue 10 Dec 2013, 11:40 am

Do AP fans worry that they will not be able to bring in the same calibre of foreign imports to the AP without the lure of the Heineken Cup, I remember seeing Dan Bowden say on twitter that he thought it would discourage SH players from joining the Jeff.

by SecretFly Tue 10 Dec 2013, 11:47 am

quinsforever wrote:lets just wait to see who goes through before we unleash maximum venom shall we?

many a slip twixt cup and lip...an all that

Tell that to Cleary. He and others will have a sharp eye on the Scots and Italians. He'll forget though that there are 6 pools and that Scottish sides and Italian sides can't fill all the bottom places alone. They'll have company in the bottom two of each pool - if they stay there, that is. As you say, it ain't over - things change.

by geoff998rugby Tue 10 Dec 2013, 11:58 am

John Taylors take

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/208575.html#vlTZgOs1Aj3jcdRS.99

Also seems that Canal+ will be taken LNR to court over their attempts to get out of the existing TV contract. Thats going to be messy

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:13 pm

ulster_on_the_up wrote:Do AP fans worry that they will not be able to bring in the same calibre of foreign imports to the AP without the lure of the Heineken Cup, I remember seeing Dan Bowden say on twitter that he thought it would discourage SH players from joining the Jeff.

It's only the top 3 or 4 clubs in AP that could have confidently predicted HC rugby to potential recruits anyway (or top 6/7 if recruiting post-season). Wage inflation from the mighty french Euro could be a problem, but that's common to all non-french teams and not just for imports..

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:10 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:John Taylors take

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/208575.html#vlTZgOs1Aj3jcdRS.99

Also seems that Canal+ will be taken LNR to court over their attempts to get out of the existing TV contract. Thats going to be messy

have you got a link for this? everything i had read so far said that if they wanted to break with canal+ (who have shared coverage with France2) they needed to do it in December. that sounds like a contractual type of thing. kind of like the 2 yrs notice prl and lnr had to give.

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:11 pm

Philip Browne (IRFU CEO)

IRFU chief executive Philip Browne fears Irish rugby could lose millions and the sport worldwide could suffer if wealthy club owners gain control of the major rugby competitions.

Browne expressed the union’s fears despite the French clubs agreeing to play in the Heineken Cup next season. Under pressure from their union, Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR) French clubs committed for the 2014-15 season, while the 14 English Premiership clubs insisted last week they would not participate in any tournaments run by European Rugby Cup, the governing body of the Heineken Cup.

On foot of the LNR’s announcement to stay within the Heineken Cup, chief executive of Premiership Rugby Mark McCafferty reputedly wrote to all the English clubs stressing the PRL’s need to find out the details of what the French were saying. For now the French are on board but losing the English and French clubs at any time would make Irish rugby highly vulnerable to greatly diminished revenue streams.

“Realistically it would put us in a very difficult position,” said Browne if the French and English clubs departed. “We generate probably €5-6million from European competition on an annual basis and the provinces maybe generate the same again, so to take a hit of €10-12 million, and then to see a spiral in terms of commercial viability and brand strength being impacted . . . that has all got to have an impact.

“It is incumbent on all in European rugby to act with a little bit more maturity than we are currently appearing to do. The difficulty we have is that there are a number of club owners who have a very different position. Some of them have more money that the entire worth of international rugby – full stop. To them this is almost personal.”

Current disagreement
The chief executive said the current disagreement between the unions and club owners is a straightforward battle for money and ultimately control of the sport. If the owners control the money, they can dictate what happens and that would be gravely injurious to the current integrity of the game.

“It’s not an ongoing battle for governance, it’s an ongoing battle for controlling the revenue streams,” explained Browne. “It’s a bit more subtle but actually what this is about is the English and French clubs would like to own the revenue streams. Obviously if they own the revenue streams they can dictate what happens.

“What people fail to understand, or certainly what some fail to understand, is that rugby is not soccer. Rugby is not a global sport and we’d be foolish to think it is. It’s not, it’s a very small sport played by a small number of countries at any sort of a high performance level and maybe in 50 years it will be a global sport. But to compare it to soccer is frankly ludicrous.”

The fear is it could be an ongoing dispute. The owners of the English and French clubs are businessmen, who have amassed fortunes that, as Browne concedes, dwarf the amounts in rugby. Mohad Altrad of Montpellier is worth €600 million according to a French business magazine, while Jacky Lorenzetti, the owner of Johnny Sexton’s club Racing Metro, has an estimated value of €400 million.

Earlier this year property entrepreneur Nigel Wray, also chairman of Saracens, banked €34 million after selling his stake in Dominos Pizza, while Bruce Craig declined to reveal in 2010 how much of his share of the €1.164 billion sale of his French-based company Marken he would pump into Bath.

Governance
“This is much bigger than Ireland,” added Browne. “This is about European rugby and international rugby as well and it is very much about governance and control and who is going to call the shots in relation to the development of the game over the next 10 years.”

An additional problem, Browne explains, is the issues could be exported. If the club owners get their way, then pressure will come on international governing bodies across the world. “I have no doubt,” he says. “The reality is I read the newspapers like everyone else. They’re talking about a Top 14 television deal of anywhere between €65 and €100 million a year. If that happens I would be very concerned if I was in New Zealand, Australia or South Africa in terms of the future of the game there.

“We have compromised on the competition format and on the financial distributions,” he added. “But we can’t compromise on the governance; we have to govern as a whole, from schools and clubs right up to international level. We can’t simply take a chunk or a segment of the game and say ‘Well, actually, we’re not going to control this bit over here, we’re going to let somebody else control it’. It just doesn’t work like that in sport.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/irfu-chief-executive-philip-browne-fears-cost-of-losing-out-to-club-owners-1.1622377?page=1

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:19 pm

quinsforever wrote:
geoff998rugby wrote:John Taylors take

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/208575.html#vlTZgOs1Aj3jcdRS.99

Also seems that Canal+ will be taken LNR to court over their attempts to get out of the existing TV contract. Thats going to be messy
have you got a link for this? everything i had read so far said that if they wanted to break with canal+ (who have shared coverage with France2) they needed to do it in December. that sounds like a contractual type of thing. kind of like the 2 yrs notice prl and lnr had to give.

http://www.sports.fr/rugby/top-14/articles/droits-tv-canal-prete-a-trainer-la-lnr-en-justice-978199/

Seems to be something to do with the tender procedure.

google translate wrote:Developed today Canal + push against the attack on the legal field. Last week, a letter would have been sent to the head of the NRL in which to be challenged by beIN current rights holder of the Top 14, too aware of the threat posed by the tender with a view SPORT his rival # 1 now on sports rights, announces its intention to launch a procedure for unfair bargaining, reports bi-weekly Midi Olympique. Canal +, the National League had deliberately left "fuiter" the maximum amount of the offer and therefore accuses the NRL for "failing to comply with its commitments in the negotiation of OTC" provided in the previous contract and preceding window to denounce it.

by HammerofThunor Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:26 pm

I'm curious what the bit in bold means (the paragraph). How do you 'own' a revenue stream? Is it that they can dictate how much goes where? If so, then that would be ridiculous. Does it mean, sort out their own deals and then put the money in the pot? Slightly different.

Also the TV for the French is going ahead because the FFR used to it to bring in the LNR to continue the LNR. Toulon got on board with the ERC because the LNR were talking about introducing foreign player limits and more governance.

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:31 pm

google translate up to its usual standard of impenetrability i see.

the article is too painful to translate the whole thing, but in a nutshell, Canal+ are p1ssed that LNR "leaked" the EUR65m offer and used it as the reference point for the packages they are making available in this auction.

that is going to be very, very hard for Canal+ to get anywhere with. by definition an auction process involves a series of bids. have no idea of the contractual niceties but that looks like desperation from Canal+.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:33 pm

Poor journalism from Johnny Watterson of The Irish Times there.

"IRFU chief executive Philip Browne fears Irish rugby could lose millions and the sport worldwide could suffer if wealthy club owners gain control of the major rugby competitions."

Whereas the gist of his article with respect to IRFU losing millions and worldwide suffering is that:

Browne fears Irish Rugby could lose millions if both English and French clubs pull out of Euro competition.

Browne would be concerned for the Southern Hemisphere if a domestic French TV deal of between 65 and 100m a year happens.

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:34 pm

You own a revenue stream of a competition if you organise it. The PRL & LNR would have owned the RCC cup (they invited the Celts & Italians to join in). They planned to run it by league, so effectively the PRL & LNR could decide how the funds were split. They planned to get the IRB to run the discipline, etc.

That of course would end in tears anyway, because the French & English clubs would never trust each other.

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:36 pm

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Poor journalism from Johnny Watterson of The Irish Times there.

"IRFU chief executive Philip Browne fears Irish rugby could lose millions and the sport worldwide could suffer if wealthy club owners gain control of the major rugby competitions."

Whereas the gist of his article with respect to IRFU losing millions and worldwide suffering is that:

Browne fears Irish Rugby could lose millions if both English and French clubs pull out of Euro competition.

Browne would be concerned for the Southern Hemisphere if a domestic French TV deal of between 65 and 100m a year happens.

He says competitionS, not competition.

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:37 pm

some cheese with the whine Mr Brown?

rather than just crying like a baby about the top14 new tv deal, why doesnt he give even 1, just 1 suggestion as to what should be done?

i'll tell you why. because there is absolutely nothing he or anyone else can do about the top14 tv deal. zippo. zilch. nada. it was the unions who took the game professional to maximise the money from RWCs and intl tournaments, and now that the clubs are becoming commercially strong he wants to stop the game being professional? that's like being half-pregnant. you either are or you aren't.

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm

quinsforever wrote:google translate up to its usual standard of impenetrability i see.

the article is too painful to translate the whole thing, but in a nutshell, Canal+ are p1ssed that LNR "leaked" the EUR65m offer and used it as the reference point for the packages they are making available in this auction.

that is going to be very, very hard for Canal+ to get anywhere with. by definition an auction process involves a series of bids. have no idea of the contractual niceties but that looks like desperation from Canal+.

Still mess it up bigtime.

And not good to urine off a major broadcaster in France like that. I think that is why the French club owners are really annoyed with Goze as well as the worry about losing the vast coverage of Canal+.

by geoff998rugby Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:41 pm

Simple club representatives negotiate marketing and sponsorship.
The money is split 33/33/33 as previous discussed.
The individual countries determine how that is split internally.
Unions retain overall governance re format, timetabling, legal matters

Problem solved

by mystiroakey Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:43 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:Simple club representatives negotiate marketing and sponsorship.
The money is split 33/33/33 as previous discussed.
The individual countries determine how that is split internally.
Unions retain overall governance re format, timetabling, legal matters

Problem solved

Yes all that problem is solved- but none of that is material- the problems are allways about TV money...

YOu havent touched on that issue and that is the stumbling block

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:45 pm

Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:google translate up to its usual standard of impenetrability i see.

the article is too painful to translate the whole thing, but in a nutshell, Canal+ are p1ssed that LNR "leaked" the EUR65m offer and used it as the reference point for the packages they are making available in this auction.

that is going to be very, very hard for Canal+ to get anywhere with. by definition an auction process involves a series of bids. have no idea of the contractual niceties but that looks like desperation from Canal+.

Still mess it up bigtime.

And not good to urine off a major broadcaster in France like that. I think that is why the French club owners are really annoyed with Goze as well as the worry about losing the vast coverage of Canal+.

This. top14 have the content. just like PRL in england. they don't need a particular broadcaster, the broadcasters need them. the whole point is to put the broadcasters in competition with each other. you hope someone is urined off. because thats how you get the best price. not by re-signing the cozy deal and not inviting anyone else to bid (ERC raise your hand).

it's business, it's not personal. canal+ are upset that BeIn is competing with them in all sports coverage. it's business for Canal+, and business for LNR.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:45 pm

Sin é wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Poor journalism from Johnny Watterson of The Irish Times there.

"IRFU chief executive Philip Browne fears Irish rugby could lose millions and the sport worldwide could suffer if wealthy club owners gain control of the major rugby competitions."

Whereas the gist of his article with respect to IRFU losing millions and worldwide suffering is that:

Browne fears Irish Rugby could lose millions if both English and French clubs pull out of Euro competition.

Browne would be concerned for the Southern Hemisphere if a domestic French TV deal of between 65 and 100m a year happens.

He says competitionS, not competition.

Yep, Watterson says competitionS, whereas he quotes Browne as saying competition.

"We generate probably €5-6million from European competition...."

by broadlandboy Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:45 pm

IMHO is what PRL/LNR want with some input into format, timetable etc not control just an input.

by geoff998rugby Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:46 pm

TV can come under marketing

Split the money 33/33/33 and there would not be a problem

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:46 pm

quinsforever wrote:some cheese with the whine Mr Brown?

rather than just crying like a baby about the top14 new tv deal, why doesnt he give even 1, just 1 suggestion as to what should be done?

i'll tell you why. because there is absolutely nothing he or anyone else can do about the top14 tv deal. zippo. zilch. nada. it was the unions who took the game professional to maximise the money from RWCs and intl tournaments, and now that the clubs are becoming commercially strong he wants to stop the game being professional? that's like being half-pregnant. you either are or you aren't.

He does. Stop the rich sugar daddies getting their hands on the sport.

Philip Browne wrote:“It is incumbent on all in European rugby to act with a little bit more maturity than we are currently appearing to do. The difficulty we have is that there are a number of club owners who have a very different position. Some of them have more money that the entire worth of international rugby – full stop. To them this is almost personal.”

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:48 pm

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Poor journalism from Johnny Watterson of The Irish Times there.

"IRFU chief executive Philip Browne fears Irish rugby could lose millions and the sport worldwide could suffer if wealthy club owners gain control of the major rugby competitions."

Whereas the gist of his article with respect to IRFU losing millions and worldwide suffering is that:

Browne fears Irish Rugby could lose millions if both English and French clubs pull out of Euro competition.

Browne would be concerned for the Southern Hemisphere if a domestic French TV deal of between 65 and 100m a year happens.

He says competitionS, not competition.

Yep, Watterson says competitionS, whereas he quotes Browne as saying competition.

"We generate probably €5-6million from European competition...."

It won't stop at the European Cup though (and he is talking about rugby globally - this will effect all the southern hemisphere countries because all the money will be in French rugby).

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:49 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:Simple club representatives negotiate marketing and sponsorship.
The money is split 33/33/33 as previous discussed.
The individual countries determine how that is split internally.
Unions retain overall governance re format, timetabling, legal matters

Problem solved

not quite.

how do major changes get implemented? what is the voting mechanism required in order to (for example)...

- invite more nations
- change the payout structure
- elect the chairman
- change the format of the competition itself

these are all still major issues for the french and english clubs and also for the french and english unions. these issues will all get addressed and resolved, but not within ERC. that structure is going the way of the dodo.

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:52 pm

Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:some cheese with the whine Mr Brown?

rather than just crying like a baby about the top14 new tv deal, why doesnt he give even 1, just 1 suggestion as to what should be done?

i'll tell you why. because there is absolutely nothing he or anyone else can do about the top14 tv deal. zippo. zilch. nada. it was the unions who took the game professional to maximise the money from RWCs and intl tournaments, and now that the clubs are becoming commercially strong he wants to stop the game being professional? that's like being half-pregnant. you either are or you aren't.

He does. Stop the rich sugar daddies getting their hands on the sport.

Philip Browne wrote:“It is incumbent on all in European rugby to act with a little bit more maturity than we are currently appearing to do. The difficulty we have is that there are a number of club owners who have a very different position. Some of them have more money that the entire worth of international rugby – full stop. To them this is almost personal.”

you said that, not Browne. everything he said sounds like a whine. waa waa waa that kid has more sweets than i do waa waa waa. can someone give me some of his sweets please, or at least take them off him so i am not forced to face the fact that i have less waa waa waa

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:53 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:TV can come under marketing

Split the money 33/33/33 and there would not be a problem

they agreed that already. and it still wasnt enough.

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:55 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:google translate up to its usual standard of impenetrability i see.

the article is too painful to translate the whole thing, but in a nutshell, Canal+ are p1ssed that LNR "leaked" the EUR65m offer and used it as the reference point for the packages they are making available in this auction.

that is going to be very, very hard for Canal+ to get anywhere with. by definition an auction process involves a series of bids. have no idea of the contractual niceties but that looks like desperation from Canal+.

Still mess it up bigtime.

And not good to urine off a major broadcaster in France like that. I think that is why the French club owners are really annoyed with Goze as well as the worry about losing the vast coverage of Canal+.
This. top14 have the content. just like PRL in england. they don't need a particular broadcaster, the broadcasters need them. the whole point is to put the broadcasters in competition with each other. you hope someone is urined off. because thats how you get the best price. not by re-signing the cozy deal and not inviting anyone else to bid (ERC raise your hand).

it's business, it's not personal. canal+ are upset that BeIn is competing with them in all sports coverage. it's business for Canal+, and business for LNR.

Highly unlikely that Canal+ would want to do business again (so not tender) for the tv rights. Without competition for the rights, the value decreases. Simple.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:55 pm

Sin é wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Poor journalism from Johnny Watterson of The Irish Times there.

"IRFU chief executive Philip Browne fears Irish rugby could lose millions and the sport worldwide could suffer if wealthy club owners gain control of the major rugby competitions."

Whereas the gist of his article with respect to IRFU losing millions and worldwide suffering is that:

Browne fears Irish Rugby could lose millions if both English and French clubs pull out of Euro competition.

Browne would be concerned for the Southern Hemisphere if a domestic French TV deal of between 65 and 100m a year happens.

He says competitionS, not competition.

Yep, Watterson says competitionS, whereas he quotes Browne as saying competition.

"We generate probably €5-6million from European competition...."

It won't stop at the European Cup though (and he is talking about rugby globally - this will effect all the southern hemisphere countries because all the money will be in French rugby).

Yep, but he notes that Browne links that as a consequence of the French domestic TV deal, not of wealthy club owners gaining control of major club competitionsssss.

by Jenifer McLadyboy Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:58 pm

quinsforever wrote:
This. top14 have the content. just like PRL in england. they don't need a particular broadcaster, the broadcasters need them.

This type of attitude is why the PRL have focked it up for everyone especially themselves.

BT won't be so interested in the "content" they are now left with after the mess the PRL have made of Euro Rugby.

Rugby was already the poor relation of Soccer and not worth even 5% of the amount. Now the "product" is devalued and looking like more hassle than it is worth.

BT could well just extricate themselves from their deal (because the PRL did not deliver Euro comp) and tell them to be off with themselves. Leaving everyone poorer.

It's like the PRL have said...

"You won't play by my rules? I'll just burn your house down!"

"Oh sh1t. It's my house too...... Boll1x"

Doh

Doh!

by geoff998rugby Tue 10 Dec 2013, 1:58 pm

quinsforever wrote:
geoff998rugby wrote:TV can come under marketing

Split the money 33/33/33 and there would not be a problem
they agreed that already. and it still wasnt enough.

So how TV money is split is not an issue?

Comes doen to control not TV

by SecretFly Tue 10 Dec 2013, 2:01 pm

Control of a competition means you control the rules... means certainly that quite rapidly after gaining control of the rules, the English AP would lose any meaningful salary cap for itself (to compete with the French of course..... or so the excuse would be)

Then instantly that leads on to the nightmare scenario Browne speaks of. Instantly private owners in the two big nations can really begin buying players they really want. Instantly Irish players, Welsh players become even more a target. Instantly too the SH players are attracted with significant increases in already significant offers - thus threatening the stability of their Super rugby.

And rugby is sucked into a hot-house that has its centre right slap bang in the middle of the English channel. All best players, coaches and resources are sucked there - and over a short time, a nice reassuring familiarity emerges as four or five Super sides rise up and use massive amounts of money to stay there. Mer-it-oc-racy it shall be named henceforth Wink

Now, the English and French will say to all that (as Quins already does - licking his drooling lips in the process) "Yeah. So what's the problem with that? That's the way professional sport goes - and sounds a wonderfully juicy prospect too may we say!!"

And that's the problem - that attitude that can't work out how (or that refuses to appreciate) how such an outcome threatens the viability of the rest of us if it was allowed to happen. That attitude, the McCafferty attitude, is the stalling point on any agreement into the future.

by Sin é Tue 10 Dec 2013, 2:02 pm

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Poor journalism from Johnny Watterson of The Irish Times there.

"IRFU chief executive Philip Browne fears Irish rugby could lose millions and the sport worldwide could suffer if wealthy club owners gain control of the major rugby competitions."

Whereas the gist of his article with respect to IRFU losing millions and worldwide suffering is that:

Browne fears Irish Rugby could lose millions if both English and French clubs pull out of Euro competition.

Browne would be concerned for the Southern Hemisphere if a domestic French TV deal of between 65 and 100m a year happens.

He says competitionS, not competition.

Yep, Watterson says competitionS, whereas he quotes Browne as saying competition.

"We generate probably €5-6million from European competition...."

It won't stop at the European Cup though (and he is talking about rugby globally - this will effect all the southern hemisphere countries because all the money will be in French rugby).

Yep, but he notes that Browne links that as a consequence of the French domestic TV deal, not of wealthy club owners gaining control of major club competitionsssss.

He makes the point that controlling the revenue streams means control of rugby union.

We've already seen it where the celts & italians were 'invited' to participate in the RCC Cup. McCaff & Co wouldn't even show them the tv deal that was proposed to fund this new competition.

by quinsforever Tue 10 Dec 2013, 2:03 pm

Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:google translate up to its usual standard of impenetrability i see.

the article is too painful to translate the whole thing, but in a nutshell, Canal+ are p1ssed that LNR "leaked" the EUR65m offer and used it as the reference point for the packages they are making available in this auction.

that is going to be very, very hard for Canal+ to get anywhere with. by definition an auction process involves a series of bids. have no idea of the contractual niceties but that looks like desperation from Canal+.

Still mess it up bigtime.

And not good to urine off a major broadcaster in France like that. I think that is why the French club owners are really annoyed with Goze as well as the worry about losing the vast coverage of Canal+.
This. top14 have the content. just like PRL in england. they don't need a particular broadcaster, the broadcasters need them. the whole point is to put the broadcasters in competition with each other. you hope someone is urined off. because thats how you get the best price. not by re-signing the cozy deal and not inviting anyone else to bid (ERC raise your hand).

it's business, it's not personal. canal+ are upset that BeIn is competing with them in all sports coverage. it's business for Canal+, and business for LNR.

Highly unlikely that Canal+ would want to do business again (so not tender) for the tv rights. Without competition for the rights, the value decreases. Simple.

according to who? you? business is not like life on 606. broadcasters need content. new entrants to broadcasting market push up prices. simple.

the value of the rights is going up by a factor of 3 BECAUSE THERE IS NOW MORE COMPETITION. This is a good thing.

by Sponsored content