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).

quinsforever wrote:

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

No, no, no.  You got it all mixd up there, quins.  We got the sweets - the bully boy over there in the playground....see him?  He wants them.

quinsforever wrote:

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.

Major changes get implemented by the controlling body - that includes all the point you make below that.
Who else should it be ?

You want to make it all embracing what about a European wide split something like

France and England 18% each
Celts and Italy 12% each
Other countries with full Professional sides (Georgia and Russia) and Rumania - 4% each
The  rest 4% between them

There is your UEFA style governing body with appropriate weightings
How individual countries split their share is up to them internally

Big announcement due from RFU shortly apparantly

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

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!

so you would rather the money stays at SKY and Canal+ as profits rather than going to the rugby unions, leagues and clubs as increased revenues from auctioning the TV rights aggressively? I would remind you that the Unions do precisely this in 6N and RWC auction processes.

surprising viewpoint.

What do the Unions do precisely in the 6N, quins?

SecretFly wrote: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

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.

had a productive morning SF? has been a bit quiet here without you

McCafferty is actually the strongest defender of the salary cap. he is employed to help make ALL the clubs in the AP as profitable as possible. salary cap is a critical component of that. let's all give McCaff a big thumbs up   

  

Sin é wrote:

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.

I'm not arguing the content (nor agreeing with it), just the shoddinesss of the presentation. If you're happy that the article is logical, well-written, pertinent, informative and addresses the hot issues like Welsh rugby and Euro Comp post 2015, then so be it.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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

No, no, no.  You got it all mixd up there, quins.  We got the sweets - the bully boy over there in the playground....see him?  He wants them.

Browne, and I were referring to the top14 sweets, which are far bigger, sweeter and more plentiful that everyone else's combined.

shifting to your parallel universe though (presume you are talking about HC?), you are the son of the headteacher, and your crying means he decides to go and redistribute the big kids big bag of sweets in a manner he thinks more appropriate

quinsforever wrote:
had a productive morning SF? has been a bit quiet here without you

McCafferty is actually the strongest defender of the salary cap. he is employed to help make ALL the clubs in the AP as profitable as possible. salary cap is a critical component of that. let's all give McCaff a big thumbs up   

  

Indeed. PRL are the ones that imposed the salary cap - as much as anything else to stop certain clubs getting too far ahead of the pack. There are probably 3/4 clubs that would like it increased by varying amounts, but even that is unlikely any time soon.

So McCaff enforced the salary cap? If that is the case how come so many English clubs are losing more money than what the actual salary cap is?

Is that down to the poor tv deal that McCaff has been negotiating for the PRL since he joined the PRL 5/6 years ago?

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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.

Major changes get implemented by the controlling body - that includes all the point you make below that.
Who else should it be ?

You want to make it all embracing what about a European wide split something like

France and England 18% each
Celts and Italy 12% each
Other countries with full Professional sides (Georgia and Russia) and Rumania - 4% each
The  rest 4% between them

There is your UEFA style governing body with appropriate weightings
How individual countries split their share is up to them internally

sorry geoff but you are wrong about UEFA's division of the money. the biggest driver of the allocation of revenues to clubs in the Champions League, is how much that country sells their TV rights for. And they are required to actually sell the rights themselves. so at a guess, along UEFA lines the biggest would get bigger (France particularly, then England) and the very smallest would get a big subsidy (romania, russia, portugal, spain, ukraine) and the middle would get squeezed hard...

SecretFly wrote:What do the Unions do precisely in the 6N, quins?

eat smoked salmon sandwiches and drink port

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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.

I'm not arguing the content (nor agreeing with it), just the shoddinesss of the presentation. If you're happy that the article is logical, well-written, pertinent, informative and addresses the hot issues like Welsh rugby and Euro Comp post 2015, then so be it.

Sorry, Johnny Waterstone of the Irish Times hasn't made it clear. Not sure he was addressing the Welsh problems (though I didn't see a quote from him saying that if the Welsh Regions joined the Premier League they become English clubs.'

Sin é wrote:So McCaff enforced the salary cap? If that is the case how come so many English clubs are losing more money than what the actual salary cap is?

Is that down to the poor tv deal that McCaff has been negotiating for the PRL since he joined the PRL  5/6 years ago?

name 2. saracens has been spending a lot on building stadiums and small things like that so they have wracked up a couple of big losses, although they now have nice shiny new assets that they hope will generate lots of money going forwards.

name 1 other that has lost more money than the total salary cap.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote: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

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.

had a productive morning SF? has been a bit quiet here without you

McCafferty is actually the strongest defender of the salary cap. he is employed to help make ALL the clubs in the AP as profitable as possible. salary cap is a critical component of that. let's all give McCaff a big thumbs up   

  

Then he's pulling the wool over your eyes, quins because he's wise enough to know that if you don't want to address the French over-spending issue in the rules (and it's never been mentioned in PRL dispatches) then you have to try to meet it eventually.  Many a politician has said he'd do one thing before an election and then went ahead and did the complete opposite.

Europe/HEC even now is without the 'merit' we've all been talking about.  Because we fight unequal battles against sides with unequal funding.  That's not meritocratic.  It might be modern business taken right off the football blueprint for 'success' (of the few!) but there is absolutely nothing meritocratic about Connacht meeting Toulouse.  

Yep, they won one game - but Toulouse always wins the long term seasonal war on that front, doesn't it - and all because of money differences.

So McCafferty knows only too well that to have his football blueprint competition in rugby terms, then silly amateurish things like salary caps will have to go.  You can't stop progress when players demand more and more for their services - that's the story we've been offered time and time again.  The future is plotted to design a competition for four to five Super sides.  They'll both generate most money and they'll cream most money off the top for themselves too.

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

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!

so you would rather the money stays at SKY and Canal+ as profits rather than going to the rugby unions, leagues and clubs as increased revenues from auctioning the TV rights aggressively? I would remind you that the Unions do precisely this in 6N and RWC auction processes.

surprising viewpoint.

Now you are just being ridiculous.

I don't care if the money comes from Sky, BT or uncle Tom Cobley.

I wouldn't strap myself into a car, aim it at the competition, nail the accelerator to the floor and throw the steering wheel out the window though. That would just be a VERY surprising thing to do.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:What do the Unions do precisely in the 6N, quins?

eat smoked salmon sandwiches and drink port

No wonder McCaff is jealous. 'We want them frills too, damn it!'

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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.

Major changes get implemented by the controlling body - that includes all the point you make below that.
Who else should it be ?

You want to make it all embracing what about a European wide split something like

France and England 18% each
Celts and Italy 12% each
Other countries with full Professional sides (Georgia and Russia) and Rumania - 4% each
The  rest 4% between them

There is your UEFA style governing body with appropriate weightings
How individual countries split their share is up to them internally

sorry geoff but you are wrong about UEFA's division of the money. the biggest driver of the allocation of revenues to clubs in the Champions League, is how much that country sells their TV rights for. And they are required to actually sell the rights themselves. so at a guess, along UEFA lines the biggest would get bigger (France particularly, then England) and the very smallest would get a big subsidy (romania, russia, portugal, spain, ukraine) and the middle would get squeezed hard...

TV rights agreement European Commission & UEFA
2
(1)
Principles regarding rights packages four and five (live matches
5
-
16 in Group Stage 1 and
5
-
8
in Group Stage 2)
Principle
Package 4 rights which are not sold by UEFA may be sold by the “home” clubs participating in a given match according to an
established time
-
frame and procedure:
1.
There is a cut
-
off date or "sales window" for UEFA alone to sell Package 4 rights to pay or pay
-
per
-
view broadcasters in a given territory;
2.
Broadcasters which acquire Package 4 rights from UEFA are obliged t
o ensure that the relevant matches are shown live on television;
3.
The exclusive "sales window" for UEFA to sell Package 4 rights expires one week after the draw for the First Group Stage of the competition;
4.
The calendar for the UEFA Champions League
(including the date of the draw) will be published well in advance and posted on the official UEFA web
-
site;
5.
If Package 4 rights are not sold by UEFA within this "sales window" (under the condition set out in paragraph 2 above), they may, in addition,
be sold by clubs on
an individual basis;
6.
All sales of Package 5 rights by clubs are subject to the selection of picks 1
-
4 by the broadcasters appointed by UEFA;
7.
Package 5 rights which are sold by individual clubs may only be exploited
on pay
-
TV or pay
-
per
-
view channels on a territorial basis;
8.
Package 5 rights sold by individual clubs may not be bundled together with the rights of other clubs to create a "competing" UEFA Champions League
programming offer;
9.
UEFA ma
y, in exceptional circumstances, allow Package 5 rights sold by a maximum of two clubs to be combined (for example, in the case of two clubs from the
same city selling the rights to a regional pay or pay
-
per
-
view broadcaster);
10.
Clubs selling Package 5 rights on an individual basis must notify UEFA of the fact and ensure that all relevant UEFA Champions League broadcasting and
commercial guidelines are respected;
11.
A broadcaster acquiring Package 5 rights from an individua
l club may not present itself as an official broadcast partner of the UEFA Champions League;
12.
A broadcaster acquiring Package 5 rights from an individual club may be granted the right to produce its own commentary from its production studios but no on
-
site production rights;
13.
A broadcaster acquiring Package 5 rights from an individual club may, subject to space and technical constraints, be granted the right to have its own
commentator at the match.
3
(2)
Principles regardi
ng rights package 11
1.
UEFA will operate as a production joint
-
venture for the development of UCL content delivered via mobile networks (“3G content”).
2.
Clubs which have qualified for the UCL are entitled to have access to the moving image content made availa
ble and/or produced by UEFA (for their “home” and
“away” matches) for the duration of the UCL season in question. This includes access to both the digitised material and the "raw" television feed. This also
includes access to "a
rchive" content (i.e. club matches in previous UCL competitions).
3.
Clubs will have the right to customize or edit the content made available and/or produced by UEFA provided they make a request to do so at the time when they
enter the UCL. C
lubs may also request access to the "raw" television feed directly from the host broadcaster for the purpose of digitising it themselves.
4.
UEFA has the sole right to market a global UCL, or UEFA branded, 3G product.
5.
Clubs have the sole right to market club
specific, or club branded, 3G products.
6.
Clubs may not, either directly or indirectly, use the content provided by UEFA (or the host broadcaster, as the case may be) for the purpose of creating
“competing” UCL products.
Club specific, or club branded, 3G products may not feature UCL matches in which the club is not participating.
7.
Club specific, or club branded, 3G products may not consist solely or mostly of UCL content. Club 3G products must consist of other club relate
d multimedia
content in addition to UCL multimedia content.
8.
A mobile operator acquiring a club specific, or club branded, 3G product may not, on that basis alone, present itself as an official mobile/wireless partner of the
UCL.
9.
Revenues deri
ved from 3G sales by UEFA will be redistributed according to a solidarity key and applied for the benefit of all clubs participating in the UCL and for
the benefit of European Football more generally.
10.
Clubs which market a 3G product using con
tent made available by UEFA or clubs opting for the “raw” television feed will, in accordance with the solidarity
principle, be required to pay a fee for it; which fee will be established in advance by UEFA on a market by market basis. Thi
s fee will be defined on a basis that
will be fair, transparent and non
-
discriminatory.
11.
Any dispute regarding the fee will be settled by an arbitration body, comprising one representative nominated by the relevant club, one representative no
minated
by UEFA, and a third independent member.
12.
Clubs marketing club specific, or club branded, 3G products containing UCL content are obliged to notify UEFA of this fact.
4
(3)
Principles applicable to the award of UCL television contracts
In the award of contracts for the television rights to the UEFA Champions League the following principles shall be observed:
1.
Contracts shall, in principle, be concluded for a period not exceeding three (3) UEFA Champions League seasons;
2.
UEFA shall, from time to time, publish criteria on the standards which broadcasters must satisfy to be "qualified" for televising the UEFA Champions League;
3.
All qualified broadcasters in the contract territory shall have an equal opportunity to bid fo
r the rights;
4.
Contracts for the award of the rights shall be advertised on the UEFA web
-
site (uefa.com) at appropriate times;
5.
All rights packages shall, in principle, be put on the market at the same time;
6.
All qualified broadcasters in the contra
ct territory shall be entitled to request the Invitation to Bid documentation;
7.
The Invitation to Bid documentation shall contain relevant details of all rights packages together with key terms and conditions and an explanation of the
inform
ation which interested parties must provide with their bid;
8.
All qualified broadcasters shall be entitled to request a presentation to explain the various rights packages on offer and the sales process;
9.
All qualified broadcasters shall be given a reas
onable time limit in which to submit their bids;
10.
The bids shall be evaluated by UEFA in accordance with the following (non
-
exhaustive) criteria:
• price offered for the rights package or packages;
• acceptance by the bidder of all relevant broadcast
obligations;
• level of audience penetration of the bidder in the contract territory;
• proposed method of delivery or transmission;
• proposed promotional support offered for the UEFA Champions League;
• production capability and host broadcast expert
ise;
• combination of rights packages offered in the contract territory;
• balance between free and pay
-
television
11.
Negotiations may take place with individual bidders on the basis of offers received. The content of all offers shall remain confidential.

thats just not true SF. it's like the bogeyman story. exists just to scare children.

the professionalism ship has sailed. and it was built and launched by the unions and irb. they get much nicer salmon sandwiches and a better class of claret on board. but the ship has sailed.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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.

Major changes get implemented by the controlling body - that includes all the point you make below that.
Who else should it be ?

You want to make it all embracing what about a European wide split something like

France and England 18% each
Celts and Italy 12% each
Other countries with full Professional sides (Georgia and Russia) and Rumania - 4% each
The  rest 4% between them

There is your UEFA style governing body with appropriate weightings
How individual countries split their share is up to them internally

sorry geoff but you are wrong about UEFA's division of the money. the biggest driver of the allocation of revenues to clubs in the Champions League, is how much that country sells their TV rights for. And they are required to actually sell the rights themselves. so at a guess, along UEFA lines the biggest would get bigger (France particularly, then England) and the very smallest would get a big subsidy (romania, russia, portugal, spain, ukraine) and the middle would get squeezed hard...

I was talking about Governance not money.
Individual countries pocketing the lions share of the TV cash is exactly why we must never go down the soccer route.
In soccer since 1995 only 1 final has had teams outside 4 big nations competing for the European Championship. The rest cant compete
A soccer solution would destroy professional rugby in half of the top 10 nations.
Soccer can sustain a semblance of second grade status in smaller countries because it is the most popular sport in 150+ countries .
Rugby Union by contrast is the most popular in 1 and, argueable, in 3 others. It cannot sustain itself in the same way.

If the French and English insist on that you can say goodbye to meaningful Internationals and goodbye to the 6N.
The World Cup will become a farce like the Rugby League world cup - 1 team can win it, 2 others are ok, the rest are nowhere.

If something along the lines I suggested is not acceptable then the UNions will say no and they have my full support.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

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!

so you would rather the money stays at SKY and Canal+ as profits rather than going to the rugby unions, leagues and clubs as increased revenues from auctioning the TV rights aggressively? I would remind you that the Unions do precisely this in 6N and RWC auction processes.

surprising viewpoint.

Now you are just being ridiculous.

I don't care if the money comes from Sky, BT or uncle Tom Cobley.

I wouldn't strap myself into a car, aim it at the competition, nail the accelerator to the floor and throw the steering wheel out the window though. That would just be a VERY surprising thing to do.

i agree. you are talking about PRL. i wasnt. and i'm still not.

i'm talking about the concept of rugby itself being the content, and not giving its arse up to the first boy it meets.

What's not true?
The end to caps?

I guarantee you - English rugby if it does enter European competition again, will sooner rather than later say that salary caps are for yesteryear in the cruel, cold big and adult business world of modern professional sport.

If you think differently then it's you now sounding like the dirt farmer yokel Union guys

quinsforever wrote:

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.

There maybe more money now, but the more money these broadcasters pay, it can become unsustainable and they crash and burn.

Geoff

this..."In soccer since 1995 only 1 final has had teams outside 4 big nations competing for the European Championship. "

as opposed to rugby which is so much more open? 3 nations is the answer for club rugby.

3 from 6 is a reasonable ratio

4 from 50+ is not

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

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.

There maybe more money now, but the more money these broadcasters pay, it can become unsustainable and they crash and burn.

awfully decent of you to worry about the financial health of the poor, ignorant misguided broadcasters.

me, i would tend to assume they are pretty good at looking after their own interests, seeing as how they got to be so big and profitable in the first place.

geoff998rugby wrote:3 from 6 is a reasonable ratio

4 from 50+ is not

this is the whole root of the problem. you say 3 from 6. because for you, rugby is and should be a closed shop. hey if you get rid of the italians, scots and welsh from HC then you could say 100%!

for me i say rugby is 3 from 50+

Yep, there is only one broadcaster who has lasted the pace. I'd keep an eye on what they are doing.

You have it the wrong way round.

It may be 6 now but it can be more.

The English solution will turn 6 into 2
Under the Unions there is at least the chance of expanding beyond 6.

Rugby is not soccer 50+ professional set ups is not feasible in the near or even middle future.
Also the nature of the game means you cannot have a minnow like Belgium play a big play like England in the same way that Luxemborg can play Germany. They have zero chance of winning and more importantly it could be dangerous. We need to recongnise those difference.

Focus should be on growing the professional leagues in Georgia and Russia and helkping Rumania.
they are the next set of countries to develop.

SecretFly wrote:What's not true?
The end to caps?  

I guarantee you - English rugby if it does enter European competition again, will sooner rather than later say that salary caps are for yesteryear in the cruel, cold big and adult business world of modern professional sport.  

If you think differently then it's you now sounding like the dirt farmer yokel Union guys

i do think differently. if the PRL gets it right they can help bring about a modern professional, profitable league that gets along great with its union, and reinvests heavily into the developmental side of english club and academy rugby. this will hopefully lead to greater success of the english national side as well as making rugby commercially viable at club level.

i think the salary cap is here to stay. it might get raised if the required majority of clubs desire it. but its a great thing and is clearly recognised as such by most of the clubs.

geoff998rugby wrote:You have it the wrong way round.

It may be 6 now but it can be more.

The English solution will turn 6 into 2
Under the Unions there is at least the chance of expanding beyond 6

not under ERC there isnt. they have had their chance and they fupped it.

FIRA-AER will definitely look to represent the smaller nation's clubs - that's what they currently do.

Could the ERC do more - yes.
Should we re consistitute the Governance of European to be more inclusive - why not.
See the % I suggested above.
Should we go down the route suggested by PRL - not in a million years

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:What's not true?
The end to caps?  

I guarantee you - English rugby if it does enter European competition again, will sooner rather than later say that salary caps are for yesteryear in the cruel, cold big and adult business world of modern professional sport.  

If you think differently then it's you now sounding like the dirt farmer yokel Union guys

i do think differently. if the PRL gets it right they can help bring about a modern professional, profitable league that gets along great with its union, and reinvests heavily into the developmental side of english club and academy rugby. this will hopefully lead to greater success of the english national side as well as making rugby commercially viable at club level.

i think the salary cap is here to stay. it might get raised if the required majority of clubs desire it. but its a great thing and is clearly recognised as such by most of the clubs.

That would be an admirable goal, if indeed it is the PRL's. Why do you pretend that the PRL cares about the game in tier two and three nations tho?

geoff998rugby wrote:You have it the wrong way round.

It may be 6 now but it can be more.

The English solution will turn 6 into 2
Under the Unions there is at least the chance of expanding beyond 6.

Rugby is not soccer 50+ professional set ups is not feasible in the near or even middle future.
Also the nature of the game means you cannot have a minnow like Belgium play a big play like England in the same way that Luxemborg can play Germany. They have zero chance of winning and more importantly it could be dangerous. We need to recongnise those difference.

Focus should be on growing the professional leagues in Georgia and Russia and helkping Rumania.
they are the next set of countries to develop.

I still want to see these countries play in the European cup in some way - league select teams or countries as appropriate -

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:3 from 6 is a reasonable ratio

4 from 50+ is not

this is the whole root of the problem. you say 3 from 6. because for you, rugby is and should be a closed shop. hey if you get rid of the italians, scots and welsh from HC then you could say 100%!

for me i say rugby is 3 from 50+

it's a smokescreen...the getting more rugby sides in...to get them playing in tiers below the big boys...lovely...nobody watching...you never watching...no TV network interested in showing them...no sponsors giving a damn

It's a myth because Browne is correct.  Some people try to pretend that rugby is as big in potential as football is and that it's just that it is managed by the wrong people.  
It bluntly isn't within the same universe as football.  And the ambitious guys know that too well.  They don't want to spread resources, they want to pool those resources.  Thus the sneers about Scottish and Italian sides after the weekend.
What makes you think other even lesser nations than Scotland and Italy won't also be sneered at when and if they enter the big happy land of European club rugby? They will be just fodder to make the competitions appear to be bigger than they are.  Hypocricy is doing the rounds and not just amongst Unions.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:What's not true?
The end to caps?  

I guarantee you - English rugby if it does enter European competition again, will sooner rather than later say that salary caps are for yesteryear in the cruel, cold big and adult business world of modern professional sport.  

If you think differently then it's you now sounding like the dirt farmer yokel Union guys

i do think differently. if the PRL gets it right they can help bring about a modern professional, profitable league that gets along great with its union, and reinvests heavily into the developmental side of english club and academy rugby. this will hopefully lead to greater success of the english national side as well as making rugby commercially viable at club level.

i think the salary cap is here to stay. it might get raised if the required majority of clubs desire it. but its a great thing and is clearly recognised as such by most of the clubs.

That would be an admirable goal, if indeed it is the PRL's.  Why do you pretend that the PRL cares about the game in tier two and three nations tho?

i dont. highlighting inconsistencies in what some people post says nothing about what i think PRL's goals are for minor nations. i've said many times i think its something PRL uses in its media weaponry that i put about as much weight in as the "we are the guardians of the soul of rugby" argument from union supporters.

furry muff, so both jibberish

I think PRL do care* about the game in some minor nations - those with a large number of chimneypots. The invitation to Russian and US teams to their World Club 7's is significant in that respect.

* Care as in new market potential.

That's the most honest comment in a few weeks Dubbelyew.  Congrats.

It is and always has been and always will be about the chimney pot potential.  

Many chimney pots mean teams of potential that need nuturing to help them grow.

Few chimney pots mean teams that are nowhere near good enough to inhabit the same playing field as their betters.... and such teams should be trampled into the ground with military precision.

The only quizzical thing about that philosophy is that Italy is further along in getting interested in rugby than many of the others mentioned - and has a potential audience equal to the existing one in England and France.  But nobody in PRL is trying to kiss their mule for some reason!  Maybe they realise they'd have to sell their soul and profits to the media mafia there to get any kind of loose change out of any deal.

SecretFly wrote:That's the most honest comment in a few weeks Dubbelyew. Congrats.

It is and always has been and always will be about the chimney pot potential.  

Many chimney pots mean teams of potential that need nuturing to help them grow.

Few chimney pots mean teams that are nowhere near good enough to inhabit the same playing field as their betters.... and such teams should be trampled into the ground with military precision.

The only quizzical thing about that philosophy is that Italy is further along in getting interested in rugby than many of the others mentioned - and has a potential audience equal to the existing one in England and France.  But nobody in PRL is trying to kiss their mule for some reason!  Maybe they realise they'd have to sell their soul and profits to the media mafia there to get any kind of loose change out of any deal.

Honesty is a very under-rated concept - you should try it sometime.   

Tweets say RFU press conference is over after 1.5 hours, with summary being they believe situation can still be saved, most issues resolved, 'just' 3 left to sort out - governance, voting balance, TV rights.

Where's the <heart sinks> icon?

It's my honesty that gets me most into trouble. That's why I like using it - it draws a crowd

Now how to turn the crowd into profit is all I need to work on. I'll ask a few club owners the secret.

From what I read (mole posting on Munsterfans), he is appealing to other unions to help sort it out. Also, that its the FFR that are really sticking their heels in.

Interesting as well, Richie says he knew nothing about the BT deal that the PRL signed until after the event.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Tweets say RFU press conference is over after 1.5 hours, with summary being they believe situation can still be saved, most issues resolved, 'just' 3 left to sort out - governance, voting balance, TV rights.

Where's the <heart sinks> icon?

I don't think they get it yet. from what I see the 5 unions are going ahead - the prl can join or not. No more talking. Either the english clubs join in on the very good terms offered or they don't.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Tweets say RFU press conference is over after 1.5 hours, with summary being they believe situation can still be saved, most issues resolved, 'just' 3 left to sort out - governance, voting balance, TV rights.

Where's the <heart sinks> icon?

Now sorry - but that's just beginning to turn our sport into the world's best joke.

Governance, Voting Balance, TV rights is all that now needs solving?  They needed a big meeting, a big announcement that they would be making a big announcement, then the bg announcement itself to come to the same conclusion that the dogs down the alleyways have already known for months?

Now there is progress!  We should see a conclusion to this one soon enough so - let's say in the next 15 years or so.

Sin é wrote:From what I read (mole posting on Munsterfans), he is appealing to other unions to help sort it out. Also, that its the FFR that are really sticking their heels in.

Interesting as well, Richie says he knew nothing about the BT deal that the PRL signed until after the event.

But he's suggesting the Unions should still help PRL out of their own mess and help them honour their rash BT deal by giving in to all their demands?  

This Ian Richie guy...I'll say it again - he negotiates with the panache of the little black guy in Bad Santa.  He really does always remind me of him when these comments come out.

The PRL are in a fix, they can't get out of the BT deal; so the Unions should take pity on them, walk away from their own Sky deal, give in to the structural demands of PRL, give over full control of the HEC to the PRL and all for the betterment of rugby and the saving of McCafferty's bacon?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Tweets say RFU press conference is over after 1.5 hours, with summary being they believe situation can still be saved, most issues resolved, 'just' 3 left to sort out - governance, voting balance, TV rights.

Where's the <heart sinks> icon?

picard usually does it for me...  

Sin é wrote:From what I read (mole posting on Munsterfans), he is appealing to other unions to help sort it out. Also, that its the FFR that are really sticking their heels in.

Interesting as well, Richie says he knew nothing about the BT deal that the PRL signed until after the event.

that backs up the much rubbished statement from McCafferty that the other unions were all basically on board apart from one - and that one was and apparently still is clearly Camou.

so all the issues bar the actual 3 issues were resolved.

  

"he negotiates with the panache of the little black guy in Bad Santa."

Come on that little dwarf dude gets results