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

by mystiroakey Wed 11 Dec 2013, 3:38 pm

First topic message reminder :

"Rugby Union is too complicated to understand to attract a mass audience in the first place."

which is the problem for union fans..

because otherwise league or NFL could overtake rugby and kill it.

Off course the reality is it isnt to complicated and by far the best form, but if union doesn't progress(as at the moment it is by far the biggest global rugby type game) others will over take

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 13 Dec 2013, 4:20 pm

Strokey, can I suggest you head off and grab a cuppa or summat? A wee break and you'll no doubt be back refreshed!

by Poorfour Fri 13 Dec 2013, 4:22 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Poorfour wrote: There's no doubt that Munster and Leinster are great sides, but you can't say for certain that they'd have had the success they have had if they always had to have one eye on league qualification (the "they're great in the Rabo as well" argument would only hold water if all the teams in the league had something to play for at all times, which is generally the position in the AP)

With respect to your opinions again Poorfour - but that's trying again to have an argument point and covering your bases by rubbishing the ready-made answer to it.
You can't have it both ways......... either Leinster and Munster have been languishing comfortably in the mid to bottom rungs of Pro12 over the years or they've been there or thereabouts in winning it over those years. Which is it? One proves your point precsie and accurate the other proves you wrong. No middle cozy ground of rubbishing both answers that might come your way before they get to you.

Irish provinces fight as hard for their Pro12 as the do in HEC - history proves it - not just in games won and titles but in actual games played with the intensity needed - by HEC players OR their lesser brothers
Both playing as hard as the can to pull off two titles, not just preparing calmly for one. A Pro12 player today fights to get into HEC sides tomorrow. They don't make it if they don't try in Pro12.

Also, there is no way an argument works that even Irish players (the HEC ones you all talk about - without ever talking about players who gave their all in both contests!) but there is no way a team of players would be ready to unleash the intensity of play needed to beat big English and French sides if they just came off their cottonwool holidays a few days before HEC itself. it just doesn't compute in a real man's world where real up-to-speedness is needed to compete with these up-to-speed sides.

That's not my point, and I think you know it. Yes, the Irish teams have done well in the Rabo as well and I have no doubt that they compete hard. But it's not about the Irish teams or players, it's about the competition and the competing teams. I do not believe that the intensity of competition is the same in all the matches that they have to play, for the simple reason that not every match in the Rabo matters to every team. Yes, they are professional sportsmen and yes they are playing for their places but if the outcome of the game is less important then I think most reasonable observers would agree that the game will lack the intensity of one where there is something serious at stake.

A team with no realistic chance of making the Rabo playoffs is only playing for pride. That has to change the way that players play. They might be a little less willing to get hurt, a little less likely to do the dirty work in favour of looking for a flash play. It's a matter of a couple of %, but rugby is a game of small margins. If you're playing for the playoffs against a team that has no real goal left this season, it's going to be easier than against someone who is fighting for qualification.

In the AP, the playoff places and the HEC qualifiers are usually up for grabs until the last weekend. Quite often the relegation spot is closely contested as well - when Quins went down it was decided - quite literally - by the last kick of the last game of the entire season. There are generally one or two late games each season where the result is not important, and you can tell - Sale, I think, once brought their academy to play because they wanted to meet an EQP target, and there was Bath's odd squad rotation at Sarries (though that was more a tactical attempt at managing the season than anything else).

There's also the resting of players thing. In the Rabo, you have more option not to rush a player back from injury and play them when they are 95%. Most AP clubs don't have that option.

Besides, read my post again. I wasn't denigrating the Irish, I was making a point about comparing apples with apples. The leagues are not the same and therefore not directly comparable, so all I said - and I picked my words very carefully - was that you couldn't say for certain. Can you honestly tell me that you are absolutely certain that with qualification and relegation to worry about the provinces' results would have been just as good as they are? Absolutely, bet your house on it certain?

I'll invite the board to decide how intellectually honest your answer is.

by mystiroakey Fri 13 Dec 2013, 4:23 pm

ASBO

can i ask you some questions?

and can you answer honestly?

Have you got any idea what SF is arguing?

When have i stated the the PRL are right?

Is it right that SF should tell me to not talk about the RABBO?

When has the PRL demanded changes to the rabbos demestic league?

If someone kept on telling you are suggesting things or saying things you are not how would you handle it?

by mystiroakey Fri 13 Dec 2013, 4:26 pm

SecretFly wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:

Firstly and something you need to understand.

ENGLISH PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PRL.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME NATIONALISTIC ISSUES YOU DO. just because we are English doesn't mean we have to believe or trust and stand by everything another English person or organisation does.

And if you cant point out where the PRL has demanded the rabbo make all these changes and then just run away without providing evidence then you have lost.

Game set and match.

Nothing to do with you being ENGLISH and nothing to do with YOU.

The PRL demanded changes of the Pro12. If - you -can't - understand - that - at - this - point - in - time - you - are - deluded. Is that clear enough? The Pro12 is a League of Union Nations. PRL and LNR demands that it constructs itself only as a single entity non-diverse Union League.
Neither you personally nor you AS AN ENGLISH PERSON have relevance to that debate or that truth. But you said they made no such demands. They did.

ok that's nonsense(the prl quit something and then suggested a new format which wasn't accepted- they didn't demand a thing)- but lets forget that for a minute?

When have i once said the prl are right with there methods.

Why shouldn't I talk about the Rabbo? you have told me 3 times not to!

you have also suggested that i think the PRL is right to tell others what to do, or to suggest this new format the way they did!!

When have I once stated that?

If the PRL are the ones forcing other's to think a certain way- All I can say is that you are the PRL in this debate between me and you.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 13 Dec 2013, 4:31 pm

mystiroakey wrote:ASBO

can i ask you some questions? Yes

and can you answer honestly? Do me best

Have you got any idea what SF is arguing? He's making the point that altho the Irish teams might have the option to take the Rabo easy due to no relegation, in fact the results seem to indicate otherwise ... or was that not what you were asking?

When have i stated the the PRL are right? Your default position does normally seem to be the side of the PRL, but I confess to being a little lost on where you stand on competition structure as you keep referring to a UEFA-comp and i dont follow footie

Is it right that SF should tell me to not talk about the RABBO? Talk about what you like, everyone else does

When has the PRL demanded changes to the rabbos demestic league? Effectively they are exploiting the point that the Rabo can have no relegation cos there are no replacement teams

If someone kept on telling you are suggesting things or saying things you are not how would you handle it? Hmm, respond with WMD

by mystiroakey Fri 13 Dec 2013, 4:38 pm

Thanks

I am not part of that irish rabbo quality debate, they do fine within the rabbo and the ERC- there Results speak for themselves. I dont care how the rabbo is run. Only the ERC

My major problem is when someone constantly tells me what they think I am saying yet couldn't be further from the truth,

by TJ Fri 13 Dec 2013, 9:46 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Ok i get it - you just dont want to hear an English POV.

Seriously reign it down, its an open forum. If I wanted to talk about the Rabbo i can, however I am only talking about it in regards to the problem. within the ERC.

But you are wrong - and how is 6 places for the AP meritocratic?

by TJ Fri 13 Dec 2013, 9:49 pm

mystiroakey wrote:

When has the PRL demanded changes to the rabbos demestic league?

continually stating how the HC places should be allocated and complaining about the lack of relegation

by BigTrevsbigmac Sat 14 Dec 2013, 1:49 pm

Ian Robertson on Radio 5 saying Ian Ritchie trying to broker deal and all unions agreeing 6 nations committe to run HC except Farnce.

Sky in negotiation and it looks like if 6Ns committe run it then BT would have broadcasting rights.

Only heard tail end so maybe someone else can confirm this?

by Breadvan Sat 14 Dec 2013, 2:19 pm

I heard it too btbm. All the nations bar the french are interested in the 6N committee running the HC.

by BigTrevsbigmac Sat 14 Dec 2013, 2:27 pm

Breadvan wrote:I heard it too btbm. All the nations bar the french are interested in the 6N committee running the HC.

Thanks

by quinsforever Sat 14 Dec 2013, 2:37 pm

wouldnt be surprising. and while 6N would be a big improvement on the tained ERC, i don't think it's a good long term solution. Because 6N only represents the interests of the 6 nations involved.

rare for me to find myself agreeing with Camou and Lapasset, but i think i new administrative body is required. And 6N is in the same building as ERC, so not exactly a fresh start.

would be great if they could get the english sides back in though. And they were never going to rejoin ERC.

by mystiroakey Sat 14 Dec 2013, 2:38 pm

"continually stating how the HC places should be allocated and complaining about the lack of relegation"

so when did they demand the Rabbo do anything to there domestic league then!??

how does that answer the question.

by mystiroakey Sat 14 Dec 2013, 2:39 pm

wrong thread

by Standulstermen Sat 14 Dec 2013, 4:40 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25382232

ahem

by HammerofThunor Sat 14 Dec 2013, 4:46 pm

Oh ffs

by stub Sat 14 Dec 2013, 4:48 pm

by Standulstermen Sat 14 Dec 2013, 4:49 pm

Seems like this might be the deal that was rumoured to have been agreed by all but Camou and the FFR before they broke last time.

I should add that any new competition that is made I feel there should be no rights to any broadcaster and they can bid for them. If BT win the rights, no worries.

by stub Sat 14 Dec 2013, 5:19 pm

Standulstermen wrote:Seems like this might be the deal that was rumoured to have been agreed by all but Camou and the FFR before they broke last time.

I should add that any new competition that is made I feel there should be no rights to any broadcaster and they can bid for them. If BT win the rights, no worries.

I would agree with that completely, which could still make things tricky for PRL...

by Standulstermen Sat 14 Dec 2013, 5:32 pm

That's just my personal perspective Stub. I would suggest the RFUs plan involved BT with no discussion

by quinsforever Sat 14 Dec 2013, 5:39 pm

Standulstermen wrote:That's just my personal perspective Stub. I would suggest the RFUs plan involved BT with no discussion

so what? more money for everyone, and all 6 nations involved.

english teams cant play in a SKY broadcast competition. end of. that's what they agreed with BT.

what would be the point of putting rights out to tender if any winner bar BT meant the english clubs couldnt participate?

by stub Sat 14 Dec 2013, 5:40 pm

Well Stand I agree with your perspective on this one. Although pragmatically if BT are agreed by the others at least a stumbling block is removed.

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 14 Dec 2013, 6:32 pm

I think the RFU's position has been to ignore the TV deals and try and get a solution to the competition first.

I suspect they feel that, with a format agreed, no broadcaster would want to go to court to stop a competition taking place. The onus would be on them to come to an accommodation.

Not sure we can be confident of an agreement if it is something the French have already turned down.

by Totalflanker Sat 14 Dec 2013, 7:34 pm

stub wrote:Well Stand I agree with your perspective on this one. Although pragmatically if BT are agreed by the others at least a stumbling block is removed.

Agreed - do we know whether anyone other than the RFU have been able to see the details of the contract yet.

by stub Sat 14 Dec 2013, 8:07 pm

From what I've read on here - it's just the RFU that have seen the contract.

by mystiroakey Sat 14 Dec 2013, 8:27 pm

Standulstermen wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25382232

ahem

ermmm.

this tells us the BT contract is the stumbling block.

I cant see the rabbo nations climbing down to it tbh. I think if they did genuinely do this then the French eventually would..

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:44 am

The BBC article Rolling Eyes

"A European cup involving English clubs and under new management may go ahead next season, says BBC rugby union correspondent Ian Robertson.
The Heineken Cup replacement would be run by the Six Nations Committee instead of European Rugby Cup (ERC).
As such, BT Sport would be free to take over as broadcaster, ERC having sold its broadcasting rights to Sky.
The Rugby Football Union is leading the discussions and only the French federation is disputing the new plan.
England's top clubs, in the form of umbrella body Premiership Rugby, insist they will not play in any competition organised by ERC, which runs the Heineken Cup and second-tier Amlin Challenge Cup.
That stance saw them apparently isolated in Europe, until the latest developments.
Disagreements about the Heineken Cup's qualification criteria, voting structure, income distribution and future television rights are behind the row."

It's a spin on the Guardian article below which adds context:

"Ian Ritchie has resumed talks with England's Heineken Cup partners, warning that if a European tournament is not in place next season it could threaten the future of the Six Nations Championship.

The Rugby Football Union chief executive was not invited to the other five unions' meeting in Dublin last month and he believes their decision to play the Heineken Cup next season in a transitional year without the English clubs could have serious consequences for the international tournament.

"You do not want to have a vacuum next season for teams not involved in the Heineken Cup to fill which is why we have to get this resolved now. If it affects the Six Nations, we are all in trouble," he said.

Ritchie said he was not just surprised at being excluded but thought a formula had been agreed by everyone two weeks before. It would have seen the Six Nations committee take over organisation of the tournament from European Rugby Cup, although a proposal to allow clubs to run the commercial operation had not won the support of the RaboDirect unions. However, the French federation scuppered the deal – wanting to replace the committee with a bigger governing body for the game in Europe, along the lines of football's Uefa.

"The Heineken Cup issue is complex enough without tying it into a larger discussion about the organisation of European rugby," said Ritchie. "I believe in the doable and I think there is the capability of resolving the future of a club tournament now and the prospect of a temporary, one-year solution seems tricky.

"We have agreed on a lot, including the financials with built-in protection for the Rabo unions, who would have a guaranteed position for five years. Given that, it is not unreasonable to think about who has control of commercial activities."

Ritchie spoke to various parties on the phone last week, but no meeting has been arranged.

One potential stumbling block is the dispute between the Welsh Rugby Union and its four regions which is threatening to escalate in the new year.

The regions have been given until the end of the month to sign a new participation agreement. If they fail to do so – and they claim that would be committing economic suicide because it offers no increase in income for the next four years – the WRU will need to find new teams to compete in the Pro 12 and Europe. The regions would look to clubs in England and France to back them and refuse to play other sides from Wales.

The regions are in talks with Premiership Rugby about setting up an Anglo-Welsh league next season and Ritchie has been accused of being soft on his clubs to ensure that the 2015 World Cup, which the RFU is hosting, runs smoothly.

"The World Cup is not an issue because contracts are in place," said Ritchie, who added that the RFU would not replace English clubs in Europe with Championship sides. "I have to consider what is best for English rugby and our partnership with Premiership Rugby works well, but it is in the interests of everyone to have a vibrant European competition, something that works well for everyone in it.

"Everyone has to think about the dreaded alternative of not reaching an accord, especially when so much has been agreed. If contingency plans become real, what flexibility do they give? If people feel there is a realistic chance of a solution, they will not commit themselves to things that make a solution very difficult."

I strongly suspect that the agreement referred too in the BBC article are the points agreed by the 5 Unions in Dublin. It was LNR (The French) that finally put the knife in the RCC.
The BBC claim is that Richie is leading talks. With whom? Those on the phone, whoever they are, that have not yet agreed to meet with him?
The above article is the PRL line that the Guardian has been printing throughout the PRL PR campaign.
A bit of extras with the 6 Nations threat, but continuing the 'We're all doomed' warnings that accompany each article.
The word doing the rounds at the moment is that all Unions bar FFR agreed to the RFU proposal. The thinking of some is that this includes agreeing to this RCC thingy. I'm claiming that's nonsense, and a spin on the above. Willing to be proven wrong though...

by HammerofThunor Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:04 am

It was the FFR that stopped the RCC. Not the LNR. It's not up to the LNR, just as it's not up to the RRW.

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:17 am

HammerofThunor wrote:It was the FFR that stopped the RCC. Not the LNR. It's not up to the LNR, just as it's not up to the RRW.

It was LNR that finally put the knife in. Yes, it was rejected by the 5 Unions, and yes, FFR turned the screw on LNR to remain with ERC, but it was LNR that finally put the knife in. The emphasise on finally.

by nathan Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:25 am

Munchkin wrote:The BBC article

"A European cup involving English clubs and under new management may go ahead next season, says BBC rugby union correspondent Ian Robertson.
The Heineken Cup replacement would be run by the Six Nations Committee instead of European Rugby Cup (ERC).
As such, BT Sport would be free to take over as broadcaster, ERC having sold its broadcasting rights to Sky.
The Rugby Football Union is leading the discussions and only the French federation is disputing the new plan.
England's top clubs, in the form of umbrella body Premiership Rugby, insist they will not play in any competition organised by ERC, which runs the Heineken Cup and second-tier Amlin Challenge Cup.
That stance saw them apparently isolated in Europe, until the latest developments.
Disagreements about the Heineken Cup's qualification criteria, voting structure, income distribution and future television rights are behind the row."

It's a spin on the Guardian article below which adds context:

"Ian Ritchie has resumed talks with England's Heineken Cup partners, warning that if a European tournament is not in place next season it could threaten the future of the Six Nations Championship.

The Rugby Football Union chief executive was not invited to the other five unions' meeting in Dublin last month and he believes their decision to play the Heineken Cup next season in a transitional year without the English clubs could have serious consequences for the international tournament.

"You do not want to have a vacuum next season for teams not involved in the Heineken Cup to fill which is why we have to get this resolved now. If it affects the Six Nations, we are all in trouble," he said.

Ritchie said he was not just surprised at being excluded but thought a formula had been agreed by everyone two weeks before. It would have seen the Six Nations committee take over organisation of the tournament from European Rugby Cup, although a proposal to allow clubs to run the commercial operation had not won the support of the RaboDirect unions. However, the French federation scuppered the deal – wanting to replace the committee with a bigger governing body for the game in Europe, along the lines of football's Uefa.

"The Heineken Cup issue is complex enough without tying it into a larger discussion about the organisation of European rugby," said Ritchie. "I believe in the doable and I think there is the capability of resolving the future of a club tournament now and the prospect of a temporary, one-year solution seems tricky.

"We have agreed on a lot, including the financials with built-in protection for the Rabo unions, who would have a guaranteed position for five years. Given that, it is not unreasonable to think about who has control of commercial activities."

Ritchie spoke to various parties on the phone last week, but no meeting has been arranged.

One potential stumbling block is the dispute between the Welsh Rugby Union and its four regions which is threatening to escalate in the new year.

The regions have been given until the end of the month to sign a new participation agreement. If they fail to do so – and they claim that would be committing economic suicide because it offers no increase in income for the next four years – the WRU will need to find new teams to compete in the Pro 12 and Europe. The regions would look to clubs in England and France to back them and refuse to play other sides from Wales.

The regions are in talks with Premiership Rugby about setting up an Anglo-Welsh league next season and Ritchie has been accused of being soft on his clubs to ensure that the 2015 World Cup, which the RFU is hosting, runs smoothly.

"The World Cup is not an issue because contracts are in place," said Ritchie, who added that the RFU would not replace English clubs in Europe with Championship sides. "I have to consider what is best for English rugby and our partnership with Premiership Rugby works well, but it is in the interests of everyone to have a vibrant European competition, something that works well for everyone in it.

"Everyone has to think about the dreaded alternative of not reaching an accord, especially when so much has been agreed. If contingency plans become real, what flexibility do they give? If people feel there is a realistic chance of a solution, they will not commit themselves to things that make a solution very difficult."

I strongly suspect that the agreement referred too in the BBC article are the points agreed by the 5 Unions in Dublin. It was LNR (The French) that finally put the knife in the RCC.
The BBC claim is that Richie is leading talks. With whom? Those on the phone, whoever they are, that have not yet agreed to meet with him?
The above article is the PRL line that the Guardian has been printing throughout the PRL PR campaign.
A bit of extras with the 6 Nations threat, but continuing the 'We're all doomed' warnings that accompany each article.
The word doing the rounds at the moment is that all Unions bar FFR agreed to the RFU proposal. The thinking of some is that this includes agreeing to this RCC thingy. I'm claiming that's nonsense, and a spin on the above. Willing to be proven wrong though...

or proved right Wink

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:32 am

I have already provided the proof in the Guardian article which is largely supported by the Richie interview you can access on YouTube.

by nathan Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:36 am

Munchkin wrote:I have already provided the proof in the Guardian article which is largely supported by the Richie interview you can access on YouTube.

Nah, you provided an opinion on the meaning of the Guardian article. Nothing more. Your opinion doesnt mean its fact.

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:39 am

nathan wrote:
Munchkin wrote:I have already provided the proof in the Guardian article which is largely supported by the Richie interview you can access on YouTube.

Nah, you provided an opinion on the meaning of the Guardian article. Nothing more. Your opinion doesnt mean its fact.

nathan, I'm arguing from the basis of what Richie actually said in his interview. More than opinion, unless you want to argue that what Richie actually said is nothing more than his opinion. Neither am I merely offering my interpretation of what is stated in the Guardian article. It's there in black and white, and easy to comprehend.

by Sin é Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:57 am

More English threats - trying to drag the 6 Nations into it now. What have the PRL got on the RFU? Its just bizarre at this stage that they continue down this road of trying to destroy European rugby. While the RFU continue to pander to the PRL, none of the other Unions should have anything to do with them because they are poisonous.

And I don't think the FFR are much better, but at least they keep their clubs under their thumb.

Nice Munster beating Goze's Perpignan Home and Away in Europe Yahoo

by TJ Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:01 am

I think Sin e that the prl / rfu are now fairly desperate and isolated - and are trying to make something happen but its quite clear its a take it or leave it option for next year. More room for negotiation the year after. the RFU gave too much power to the PRL and have no ability to rein them in

by mystiroakey Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:07 am

The RFu are just trying to save a tourny. That's all, they are just throwing the dice.

It's clear the BT contract is the stumbling block. So there are suggesting a method where all teams can play.. That's all.

by broadlandboy Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:11 am

Strange that it is ok for the Celtic Unions to threaten the 6 Nations but not for RFU to. Blinkers off please.

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:26 am

mystiroakey wrote:The RFu are just trying to save a tourny. That's all, they are just throwing the dice.

It's clear the BT contract is the stumbling block. So there are suggesting a method where all teams can play.. That's all.

Richie seems to believe that PRL signing the contract isn't such a big deal. If it isn't such a big deal then I'm sure they can get out of it, and so Richie should be focused on encouraging them to do so, and enter with HEC next year.
My opinion is that Richie is doing the PRL's work for them in attempting to salvage this ill fated RCC.

by mystiroakey Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:35 am

That latest bbc article tells me the concern is bt and bt only. But it might be bs.

by **Notch** Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:40 am

Tbf, the BT thing was entirely idiotic. Imagine if they had just taken the BT offer to the ERC in the first place.

by broadlandboy Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:51 am

Imagine if instead of rushing the Sky deal ERC had taken time to look at other options.

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 12:02 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Imagine if instead of rushing the Sky deal ERC had taken time to look at other options.

How do you know they didn't? What other options were available?

by andyi Sun 15 Dec 2013, 12:48 pm

As it stands now:

BT has no European games for English teams to Broadcast.
Sky has the games played in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy and France to Broadcast in the UK but none of those games involve English teams.
Ireland, France and Italy have their own TV deals for these games (I think)

How about:

Dump ERC and give control to the 6N committee or some other new body.
Get the English teams back in with the new qualification (should be 6/6/8 IMO)
and revenue splits (third to each league to split as they see fit) agreed
BT can show English teams home games in the UK.
SKY can keep what they have (but gain by having English teams away games)

Should be more money to go round and BT and SKY both have games to show. Probably wont happen as the folk running RU can't agree what time of day it is!

by mystiroakey Sun 15 Dec 2013, 12:58 pm

that is all that was wanted andyi.

nothing more, nothing less

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:03 pm

andyi wrote:As it stands now:

BT has no European games for English teams to Broadcast.
Sky has the games played in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy and France to Broadcast in the UK but none of those games involve English teams.
Ireland, France and Italy have their own TV deals for these games (I think)

How about:

Dump ERC and give control to the 6N committee or some other new body.
Get the English teams back in with the new qualification (should be 6/6/8 IMO)
and revenue splits (third to each league to split as they see fit) agreed
BT can show English teams home games in the UK.
SKY can keep what they have (but gain by having English teams away games)

Should be more money to go round and BT and SKY both have games to show. Probably wont happen as the folk running RU can't agree what time of day it is!

You ARE Ian Richie, and I claim my prize Very Happy

Um, sorry. Couldn't help meself Crying or Very sad

Your idea assumes that SKY would be happy to share with BT, or vice versa. Why would ERC need to be dropped? Surely it isn't BT that has an issue with ERC, but PRL. ERC will be dropped eventually, at least in name, but I can't see that there would be a problem for PRL signing up for just one year. Other than eating some humble pie that is.

by **Notch** Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:24 pm

Munchkin wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Imagine if instead of rushing the Sky deal ERC had taken time to look at other options.

How do you know they didn't? What other options were available?

Sky deal was signed after the BT deal- so BT were out of the market by the time that deal was signed. Also, BT didn't approach the ERC they approached PRL.

Why would they approach the ERC and the PRL for rights to European games? They tried to go around the ERC to avoid a bidding war with SKY. PRL saw a chance to try and take control of European rugby and it's blown up into the current mess.

by quinsforever Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:29 pm

seems like munchkin you're missing a large part of the point of ritchie's comments.

he is trying to get something sorted before the english clubs make alternative arrangements (presumably with the welsh) that actually cause far greater damage to NH rugby (rabo league implosion).

how do you and others miss that this is the threat ritchie is highlighting?

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:35 pm

Notch wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Imagine if instead of rushing the Sky deal ERC had taken time to look at other options.

How do you know they didn't? What other options were available?

Sky deal was signed after the BT deal- so BT were out of the market by the time that deal was signed. Also, BT didn't approach the ERC they approached PRL.

Why would they approach the ERC and the PRL for rights to European games? They tried to go around the ERC to avoid a bidding war with SKY. PRL saw a chance to try and take control of European rugby and it's blown up into the current mess.

True, and it also begs the question of what McCafferty was doing as commercial chairman of the ERC?

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm

quinsforever wrote:seems like munchkin you're missing a large part of the point of ritchie's comments.

he is trying to get something sorted before the english clubs make alternative arrangements (presumably with the welsh) that actually cause far greater damage to NH rugby (rabo league implosion).

how do you and others miss that this is the threat ritchie is highlighting?

I haven't missed anything. If you have been reading my posts you will know that I am one of those which has been posting about those threats, or did you miss them?

If Richie is so concerned about these threats then he is well placed to do something about them, isn't he. Rather than meekly follow after the PRL in spouting their PR. Is he concerned about these threats, or attempting to use them as leverage? Didn't work for PRL, and I doubt it will work for him.

by Guest Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:44 pm

Notch wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Imagine if instead of rushing the Sky deal ERC had taken time to look at other options.

How do you know they didn't? What other options were available?

Sky deal was signed after the BT deal- so BT were out of the market by the time that deal was signed. Also, BT didn't approach the ERC they approached PRL.

Why would they approach the ERC and the PRL for rights to European games? They tried to go around the ERC to avoid a bidding war with SKY. PRL saw a chance to try and take control of European rugby and it's blown up into the current mess.

Yes, and it's down to PRL/RFU to disentangle themselves from this mess, and without having to look to the other 5 Unions to do it for them.

by Sponsored content