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

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

That's not the argument. The argument is that they turned down a reasonable offer.

.No its not. My point is compromise has only come from one side and that side moved as far as they possibly could. You claimed no compromise. I showed this is nonsense. When 5 out of six compromise and move as far as they can and one refuses to budge an inch then the one has left the negotiation.

Massive edit there Hammer

TJ wrote:

That's not the argument. The argument is that they turned down a reasonable offer.

.No its not.  My point is compromise has only come from one side and that side moved as far as they possibly could.  You claimed no compromise.  I showed this is nonsense.  When 5 out of six compromise and move as far as they can and one refuses to budge an inch then the one has left the negotiation.

Where is the emoticon for blowing your own brains out?

How is it compromise to offer a deal that the other cannot accept? That is not compromise.

That's like the PRL saying that they will continue with the HEC as it is now if the PRO12 sides disband the Pro12 immediately. They can't because they're contracted for another few year. That's not compromise. It's nonsense.

It's not compromise to offer something that caanot be accepted.

(PS what edit?)

Altho, not to be picky, Thunor, but as you yourself noted earlier, nobody outside of the PRL would seem to know the details of said BT contract, so those negotiating could not have been sure that the contract was/is so watertight such that they cannot get out of it under any circumstance?

As, you could easily say why did the ERC sign a deal with Sky when none of the parties signing up for the HEC had renewed the PA? It's either massively hampered them (in which case from the day both deals were since that was it and all this has been about nothing) or it was just for the HEC and ACC in case they were renewed (this would be sensible), which they aren't.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Altho, not to be picky, Thunor, but as you yourself noted earlier, nobody outside of the PRL would seem to know the details of said BT contract, so those negotiating could not have been sure that the contract was/is so watertight such that they cannot get out of it under any circumstance?

True, which may be why the unions offered that 'compromise'. It gives the PRL pretty much everything they wanted except the TV deal. If they could get out of it (and were willing) then maybe they would accept it. If not then nothing would happen.

So either, the PRL do not have a get out clause for this or they're happy not to envoke it. It could be either at this point.

So its no compromise to offer 90+% of what was asked for? Its not negotiation to refuse to budge and inch. sorry Hammer - the PRL have been completely intransigent, appear to have painted themselves into a corner and their negotiating stance has been "take it or leave it". Well the rest have left it finding the PRL have refused to move one iota.

TJ wrote:So its no compromise to offer 90+% of what was asked for?  Its not negotiation to refuse to budge and inch.  sorry Hammer - the PRL have been completely intransigent, appear to have painted themselves into a corner and their negotiating stance has been "take it or leave it".  Well the rest have left it finding the PRL have refused to move one iota.  

Ok I'm going to have to break this down. Ignore everything else and just focus on the TV deals.

The English clubs have signed a contract that their home games will be exclusively broadcast by BT.
The ERC have signed a contract that ALL games will be exclusively broadcast on Sky.

Do you see how these are mutually exclusive?

Hammer I think what TJ is getting at is that the Pro12 sides have stated they are prepared to reduce the number of automatic qualifications from 10 to 7 and that they are prepared to reduce their share of their share of the pot from 52% to 33%

Both of those are quite big compromises.
Of course the TV remains a big issue but the PRL boxed themselves into a corner on this one nobody made them. I do find it amazing that even the eRFU appear to have seen the details

Nope as the 5N agreement very carefully does not state it must be under the ERC banner.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:So its no compromise to offer 90+% of what was asked for?  Its not negotiation to refuse to budge and inch.  sorry Hammer - the PRL have been completely intransigent, appear to have painted themselves into a corner and their negotiating stance has been "take it or leave it".  Well the rest have left it finding the PRL have refused to move one iota.  

Ok I'm going to have to break this down. Ignore everything else and just focus on the TV deals.

The English clubs have signed a contract that their home games will be exclusively broadcast by BT.
The ERC have signed a contract that ALL games will be exclusively broadcast on Sky.

Do you see how these are mutually exclusive?

Home games for domestic AP? for Europe? for both? If Europe then what competition? The PRL had already given notice to leave. The RFU agreed to the SKY deal, so I'm thinking it was up to them to provide teams to enter, or am I missing something here? If it was simply domestic then why shouldn't ERC go ahead and sign the SKY deal?

Munchkin, the press release said the BT deal was for the league games and all English European home games (some reports said games in England, some said games involving the English clubs).

By HEC deal, do you mean the Sky TV deal? Considering that the PA hadn't been signed, format changes agreed, in fact negotiations hadn't even begun, it could only be that the deal was for a potential continuation of the competitions rather than signing up to them. Otherwise the unions are well and truly stupid as they cannot force sides to compete and could be left facing court action.

TJ "The competition will be driven by the existing organisation (currently named ERC) which will remain in charge of the centralised sale and management of all commercial rights, amongst other things."

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9034946,00.html

Geoff, those are massive concessions/compromises but the statement said that the Competition TV rights would be controlled by the ERC and they had already done a deal with Sky. Maybe the ERC could get out of their Sky deal but unless that is made clear to the PRL AND they have the guarantee that the English games will go to BT they can't sign up.

Hold on. Once again we are simplifying this down to a point where things look black and white where it's not.

TJ, you make it sound as if the PRL were formally presented with a "here's a deal for future competition that we're all agreed on" and turned it down. They didn't, for the simple reason that a full "compromise" deal was never agreed or even negotiated.

The RFU's negotiations with the other unions only addressed different aspects in sequence, and while the PRL were informed of the outcomes, they weren't present.

First a position was agreed on money, qualification etc. The PRL's response was provisionally positive but stressed that governance and tv rights had to be resolved.

Then the 6 Nations governance proposal was agreed. The PRL's response was provisionally positive but stressed that the details of governance and the tv rights had to be resolved.

The details and tv rights discussion never took place, because the FFR went and negotiated something different without the RFU.

To claim that the PRL rejected a compromise position isn't accurate, because there was never a complete deal put together to respond to. That's not just a picky point, it's fundamental. You don't sign up for a contract where you haven't seen all the terms. Unless you're completely stupid. [Edited for clarity]

By way of analogy, let's say Mr P is trying to buy a house from Mr E and is driving a hard bargain. Mr E eventually accepts Mr P's price, and Mr P says "I can go for this as long as the survey is good enough". But before he's arranged the survey, Mr F goes to Mr E and gazumps.

Has Mr P rejected Mr E's huge compromise on price? Or has Mr F derailed the process before it's reached any conclusion?

Oh, and another point to bear in mind is that without the BT deal, some of the compromises are meaningless. The money compromise was that the money would be split 33% each way, but with the proviso that the Rabo share wouldn't fall in aboslute terms. The BT deal brought in enough money to do that we were told; the Sky deal I am not sure on but it seemed to be a lot lower. [Edited because I forgot]

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, the press release said the BT deal was for the league games and all English European home games (some reports said games in England, some said games involving the English clubs).

By HEC deal, do you mean the Sky TV deal? Considering that the PA hadn't been signed, format changes agreed, in fact negotiations hadn't even begun, it could only be that the deal was for a potential continuation of the competitions rather than signing up to them. Otherwise the unions are well and truly stupid as they cannot force sides to compete and could be left facing court action.

TJ "The competition will be driven by the existing organisation (currently named ERC) which will remain in charge of the centralised sale and management of all commercial rights, amongst other things."

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9034946,00.html

Geoff, those are massive concessions/compromises but the statement said that the Competition TV rights would be controlled by the ERC and they had already done a deal with Sky. Maybe the ERC could get out of their Sky deal but unless that is made clear to the PRL AND they have the guarantee that the English games will go to BT they can't sign up.

Yes, my bad, but I did edit SKY for HEC. Ok, so PRL signs a contract with BT for a European competition, but what competition? PRL had already handed in their notice to quit HEC.
RFU seemed happy enough to sign the deal, even with the knowledge that PRL would not be taking part, and so it was up to RFU to provide teams.
Agreed. I think ERC signed for a continuation of the present SKY deal, but we don't know anything of possible negotiations leading up to signing the SKY deal, or of any changes from the previous contract.

Whilst I agree with TJ that the unions have compromised a shed load as regards money and format and I don't agree with the PRL signing a contract that excludes them from negotiations there is a sound argument for saying that if the unions had been more amenable to change in the first instance we would have an agreement on structure and remuneration for the Heineken cup and would now be sitting back and watching sky and BT try and outbid each other.

A giant mess

Poorfour wrote:Hold on. Once again we are simplifying this down to a point where things look black and white where it's not.

TJ, you make it sound as if the PRL were formally presented with a "here's a deal for future competition that we're all agreed on" and turned it down. They didn't, for the simple reason that a full "compromise" deal was never agreed or even negotiated.

the RFU and Mew brokered a compromise deal in which the rest went as far as they could. This was presented to the PRL who rejected it out of hand.

STill banging the drum lads?

mystiroakey wrote:STill banging the drum lads?

  

pourfour wrote:]To claim that the PRL rejected a compromise position isn't accurate, because there was never a complete deal put together to respond to.

Yes their was - governance was as part of the deal offered.  Goverence must remain with the unions but not necessarily the ERC. This is a red line for the rabo unions.

pourfour wrote:That's not just a picky point, it's fundamental. You don't sign up for a contract where you haven't seen all the terms. Unless you're completely stupid. [Edited for clarity]

Which is exactly what the PRL wanted everyone else to do with regards to their BT deal for the RCC.  we were expected to sign up for this without seeing the details of the deal

SKY/HEC, I knew what you meant.

It wasn't for a European competition. It was for any European games involving the PRL clubs.

I can't see them signing up to a continuation of the competition with Sky before negotiations have even begun. As in I can't see the contract being that they would provide a competition with teams from these countries for 4 years. What would happen if the FFR, WRU and RFU refused to put their top teams in and the rest were stuck with championship, Div2, Welsh Premeirship teams, or better yet what if Sky were stuck with them. The alternative is that the unions signed up that their best teams would be in it, but who would do that without a participation agreement.

IMO the most likely options are:

1) ERC signed a contract saying that Sky have the broadcast rights in the UK (and Ireland?) for any competitions it organises.
2) ERC signed a contract saying that if the HEC continues in it's previous form then Sky have the broadcast rights.

I think 1) is more likely (and is basically what the PRL did). But the ERC doesn't have the rights to sell these games until the Unions resign up to the PA that gives the ERC these rights. The PRL may or may not have the rights depending on the wording of the PA (but the ERC certainly don't have them). If the RFU say they think the rights go back to them I think I'd back their laywers, the RFU hold the TV rights for any European competitions.

To be honest we know bugger all about most of this. Everything comes down to the specific details, which are never released anyway.

TJ, you ignoring the quote of the Unions' statement that specifically said the competition would be driven by the ERC and (this is important) they would be in charge of the commercial stuff?

The bit that shows you were wrong?

EDIT:

 

HammerofThunor wrote:TJ, you ignoring the quote of the Unions' statement that specifically said the competition would be driven by the ERC and (this is important) they would be in charge of the commercial stuff?

The bit that shows you were wrong?

EDIT:  

It simply does not say that.  Its very carefully and politically written and says "currently the ERC" but it is implicit that it need not be the ERC and that a successor organisation is possible and indeed this was made explicit by the spokesman.  governance must remain with the unions, preferably the ERC but a successor organisation is possible so long as it remains union conrolled..

Edit Carefully put in so the PRL could sign up without having to go back on their "not the ERC ever" stance. allowing them a way out of that particular corner

No it doesn't. It says "currently named ERC". The name of the company is irrelevant. They specifically stated that the competition they would interested in continueing with would have the commercial aspects handled by the ERC (or whatever they call themselves).

"The competition will be driven by the existing organisation (currently named ERC) which will remain in charge of the centralised sale and management of all commercial rights, amongst other things."

Yup - carefully giving the PRL a way to save face and making it clear that it does not have to be the erc.  Thats what it says. Clearly stating a successor organisation is possible.

again you will not accept this because it does not fit your narrative of the poor hard done by PRL. Because of the PRLs complete intransigence and refusal to compromise in any way this is why next years european cup is likely to go ahead without them.

So we're back to the TV contracts. ERC have one with Sky for all the games and PRL have one with BT for their games.

You're response was that the Union's statement didn't refer to the ERC so it wasn't an issue.  Now you're saying that it was just a face saving exercise for the PRL, so the TV deals are a problem again.

EDIT: I don't think the PRL have been hard done by at all.  They didn't want to continue in the competition under the previous/current terms so handed their notice. If an agreement can't be reached then they will be excluded. I don't really care one way or another which it ends up being.

EDIT2: And the statement isn't talking a successor orginisation. It's talking about the same organisation with potentially a different name.

HammerofThunor wrote:SKY/HEC, I knew what you meant.

It wasn't for a European competition. It was for any European games involving the PRL clubs.

I can't see them signing up to a continuation of the competition with Sky before negotiations have even begun. As in I can't see the contract being that they would provide a competition with teams from these countries for 4 years. What would happen if the FFR, WRU and RFU refused to put their top teams in and the rest were stuck with championship, Div2, Welsh Premeirship teams, or better yet what if Sky were stuck with them. The alternative is that the unions signed up that their best teams would be in it, but who would do that without a participation agreement.

IMO the most likely options are:

1) ERC signed a contract saying that Sky have the broadcast rights in the UK (and Ireland?) for any competitions it organises.
2) ERC signed a contract saying that if the HEC continues in it's previous form then Sky have the broadcast rights.

I think 1) is more likely (and is basically what the PRL did).  But the ERC doesn't have the rights to sell these games until the Unions resign up to the PA that gives the ERC these rights.  The PRL may or may not have the rights depending on the wording of the PA (but the ERC certainly don't have them). If the RFU say they think the rights go back to them I think I'd back their laywers, the RFU hold the TV rights for any European competitions.

To be honest we know bugger all about most of this. Everything comes down to the specific details, which are never released anyway.

Yes, for European games, but European games played in which competition? As stated, PRL had already handed in their notice to quit HEC. So outside of HEC what European games would they have been playing? The point being that PRL ruled themselves out of HEC. There was no other competition unless they were thinking at that time in terms of RCC.
All Unions agreed the SKY deal, but the relevant one is RFU. If RFU signed the deal with the understanding that they play their best teams, then that is what RFU should remain faithful too. If that means 'best' outside of those AP who refuse then so be it. At the agreement of the 5 Nations the FFR promised 6 teams, but not necessarily the best of T14, and possibly including D2. Although WRU stated that should RRW not sign their PA then they would ensure teams to participate in Rabo, I'm not sure about HEC. If the SKY deal allows room to place other teams than the present best, then ERC were within their rights to sign the SKY deal.

I agree with you on option one, but then if RFU also agreed the ERC SKY deal then surely ERC were within their rights to sell their games to SKY, including any English games, but not teams signed up to PRL.

I completely agree with your last comment. We know bugger all of most of this.  

For the record, I read somewhere that the PRL contacted Sky directly saying that they would not be participating in the Heineken Cup, and Sky still signed the deal.

There is every chance that Sky would pay the original amount bearing in mind that BT are trying to bribe the Pro 12 teams (2m each for the 3 irish clubs per season) to play in the B&I Cup. Sky would probably pay the Irish clubs 3m not to!

As a reminder:

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

20m isn't very much, is it. Then no title sponsor etc. (or I presume the PRL lads were hoping to pick up on all the work the ERC people had done over the years)!

TJ wrote:

pourfour wrote:]To claim that the PRL rejected a compromise position isn't accurate, because there was never a complete deal put together to respond to.

Yes their was - governance was as part of the deal offered.  Goverence must remain with the unions but not necessarily the ERC.  This is a red line for the rabo unions.

pourfour wrote:That's not just a picky point, it's fundamental. You don't sign up for a contract where you haven't seen all the terms. Unless you're completely stupid. [Edited for clarity]

Which is exactly what the PRL wanted everyone else to do with regards to their BT deal for the RCC.  we were expected to sign up for this without seeing the details of the deal

Half right. Governance had reached a point that everyone was apparently happy with - the proposal was that the 6 Nations would be the ultimate governing body but commercial issues would be delegated to the clubs. That was acceptable to the PRL and apparently to everyone else except the FFR.

What to do about tv rights had never - as far as we know - been negotiated.

But the PRL weren't asking anyone to sign up for their contract with BT Sport. The PRL's view was that at the end of their notice period, tv rights for home games in European competition reverted to them (this may or may not be right, as Hammer has pointed out. The rights may reside with the RFU. They don't reside with the ERC because from the end of this season the PRL is no longer subject to the current participation agreement).

Anyway, the PRL negotiated with BT that they would give their Euro home game tv rights to BT in any future European competition. What that means for any future competition is that the PRL can only sign up for it if the particiation agreement allows them to retain their own home game tv rights and contribute the cash from that. Today, all the countries delegate their tv rights to ERC, which negotiates a central tv deal. PRL can only participate in a competition where each country or league retains its own home game rights and contributes the cash instead.

Point being, only the PRL and BT are parties to their contract. The PRL is not asking anyone else to sign up to it, just to accept that they will be putting cash in the pot and not tv rights. No-one else has to sign it or actually has any automatic right or need to see the details. (The RCC would have been different, but we're not talking about the RCC)

Rubbish - the PRL wanted everyone to sign up to the RCC without seeing the BT contract. Hoist by your own petard. So by your own definition the rest would have been stupid to do so.

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:

pourfour wrote:]To claim that the PRL rejected a compromise position isn't accurate, because there was never a complete deal put together to respond to.

Yes their was - governance was as part of the deal offered.  Goverence must remain with the unions but not necessarily the ERC.  This is a red line for the rabo unions.

pourfour wrote:That's not just a picky point, it's fundamental. You don't sign up for a contract where you haven't seen all the terms. Unless you're completely stupid. [Edited for clarity]

Which is exactly what the PRL wanted everyone else to do with regards to their BT deal for the RCC.  we were expected to sign up for this without seeing the details of the deal

Half right. Governance had reached a point that everyone was apparently happy with - the proposal was that the 6 Nations would be the ultimate governing body but commercial issues would be delegated to the clubs. That was acceptable to the PRL and apparently to everyone else except the FFR.

What to do about tv rights had never - as far as we know - been negotiated.

But the PRL weren't asking anyone to sign up for their contract with BT Sport. The PRL's view was that at the end of their notice period, tv rights for home games in European competition reverted to them (this may or may not be right, as Hammer has pointed out. The rights may reside with the RFU. They don't reside with the ERC because from the end of this season the PRL is no longer subject to the current participation agreement).

Anyway, the PRL negotiated with BT that they would give their Euro home game tv rights to BT in any future European competition. What that means for any future competition is that the PRL can only sign up for it if the particiation agreement allows them to retain their own home game tv rights and contribute the cash from that. Today, all the countries delegate their tv rights to ERC, which negotiates a central tv deal. PRL can only participate in a competition where each country or league retains its own home game rights and contributes the cash instead.

Point being, only the PRL and BT are parties to their contract. The PRL is not asking anyone else to sign up to it, just to accept that they will be putting cash in the pot and not tv rights. No-one else has to sign it or actually has any automatic right or need to see the details. (The RCC would have been different, but we're not talking about the RCC)

The bit in bold. We know that the Unions were prepared to change the name from ERC to whatever else, but do you have any union statement supporting the claim that commercial issues would be delegated to clubs, and what exactly this means?
The PRL already had a hand in dealing with commercial matters in HEC, but is there any evidence that all unions, bar FFR, agreed to exactly what PRL demanded?

That interview with McGrath was from 12 October, 2013. By the way, ERC to date is 55m per annum.

Link to McGrath's interview if you want to refresh your memory:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/kieran-shannon/walking-the-tightrope-246109.html

Sin e, £20M is quite a lot for just the English games. If we assume the competition is similar to now that's just less than a third of the pool games not including the the finals AND the sponsors. Don't you have much faith in the pulling power of the rest? Last season it was £45M total wasn't it?

TJ, what exactly do they need to see contract for?

Munchkin, the RFU didn't sign off not the deal. The ERC board member who represented the RFU did. That board member acts as part of the ERC with the powers granted to the ERC by the RFU in the Participation agreement, which runs out this season. So the ERC board signing a deal doesn't mean the RFU have suddenly extended their rights. Effectively the ERC has no power regarding the competitions following this year because those competitions do not exist. But they continue under the assumption that the deal will be extended, I'm sure this is made clear in any contracts they sign. If it's not then they all deserve to be sued. Also since the ERC signed the deal AND no PA exists the ERC would be liable against legal action rather than the RFU.

Now the ERC may have acted beyond it's remit and signed a deal guaranteeing the competitions to Sky (which doesn't jive with Sky being "still on board" with the new deal that doesn't include the English.

There may have been a secret participation agreement extension that hasn't been reported.

Note: all legal stuff is made up, haven't a clue.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ, what exactly do they need to see contract for?
.

pourfour wrote:That's not just a picky point, it's fundamental. You don't sign up for a contract where you haven't seen all the terms. Unless you're completely stupid. [Edited for clarity]

would you really sign up to agree to something you had not read the terms of? the PRL wanted the rest to buy a pig in a poke. Utterly stupid adn even the clowns that run the unions were never going to go for that.

Remeber both the RFU and the LNR made disparaging noises about this

HammerofThunor wrote:Sin e, £20M is quite a lot for just the English games. If we assume the competition is similar to now that's just less than a third of the pool games not including the the finals AND the sponsors. Don't you have much faith in the pulling power of the rest?  Last season it was £45M total wasn't it?

TJ, what exactly do they need to see contract for?

Munchkin, the RFU didn't sign off not the deal. The ERC board member who represented the RFU did. That board member acts as part of the ERC with the powers granted to the ERC by the RFU in the Participation agreement, which runs out this season. So the ERC board signing a deal doesn't mean the RFU have suddenly extended their rights. Effectively the ERC has no power regarding the competitions following this year because those competitions do not exist. But they continue under the assumption that the deal will be extended, I'm sure this is made clear in any contracts they sign. If it's not then they all deserve to be sued. Also since the ERC signed the deal AND no PA exists the ERC would be liable against legal action rather than the RFU.

Now the ERC may have acted beyond it's remit and signed a deal guaranteeing the competitions to Sky (which doesn't jive with Sky being "still on board" with the new deal that doesn't include the English.

There may have been a secret participation agreement extension that hasn't been reported.

Note: all legal  stuff is made up, haven't a clue.

Surely any ERC board member representing the interests of RFU would be signing off on any deal on behalf of RFU? I understand what you're saying though, but that's on the assumption that the HEC ceases to exist this season ending. Not that all are free from legal action on behalf of SKY, should that happen. I don't know.
None of that addresses my point though. I'm specifically focusing on when ERC signed the contract, and if they had been within their rights to do so. Thus far, I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.
RFU (legally acting representative) signed the SKY deal in the knowledge that PRL had withdrawn from the competition this season ending, and so unless it was thought that PRL could, and would, reverse their decision, they signed up to entering teams not necessarily those best of the AP. The remainder of those ERC board member signatories would have signed with that understanding........ I assume   

......maybe not......who knows.....

HammerofThunor wrote:Sin e, £20M is quite a lot for just the English games. If we assume the competition is similar to now that's just less than a third of the pool games not including the the finals AND the sponsors. Don't you have much faith in the pulling power of the rest?  Last season it was £45M total wasn't it?.

Thats not the English game, thats their Heineken Cup contribution. Why else would McGrath be wondering where the other 50K is coming from?

As for the pulling power of the others - we know that the PRL made an approach to Guinness and they declined. Also from that Rugby Confernce, some media specialists said that a new European Cup would not be an attractive promotion vehicle (basically, the PRL have destroyed its image and the ERC are lucky to hang onto Heineken).

Whether the ERC 'hand the right' to sign the contract or not depends on what the contract says. For clarification I have no idea about business or law.

Assumption 1) If a party gives notice the participation agreement ends - basis, if not then all but two parties could have given notice and they would be tied into a competition. This seems unlikely so it makes sense for the PA to require renewal by the remaining parties if they wish.

Assumption 2) One member/representative of a union does not have the full power of the union board unless that power is specifically given to them. In this case the power/rights of the ERC board members is defined in the Participation Agreement.

Assumption 3) Er...Quinsforever is Bruce Craig (he got really mad when I first suggested it)

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Sin e, £20M is quite a lot for just the English games. If we assume the competition is similar to now that's just less than a third of the pool games not including the the finals AND the sponsors. Don't you have much faith in the pulling power of the rest?  Last season it was £45M total wasn't it?.

Thats not the English game, thats their Heineken Cup contribution. Why else would McGrath be wondering where the other 50K is coming from?

The BT contract was only for the English games. McGrath talks a bit of nonsense in that bit. He says that the French would bring a lot of money but the FFR have said that they won't approve it so there's no go there. Clearly the £70M was for if everyone was on board and then why would the French block it? He seems to have confused himself there (or deliberately twisting things for propaganda)

As for the pulling power of the others - we know that the PRL made an approach to Guinness and they declined. Also from that Rugby Confernce, some media specialists said that a new European Cup would not be an attractive promotion vehicle (basically, the PRL have destroyed its image and the ERC are lucky to hang onto Heineken).

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/11/clubs-guinness-rugby-champions-cup-sponsor

So, undisclosed source making a vague claim against a direct statement refuting it    Hold on...could the media actually make stuff up? No..they wouldn't do that, they're full of integrity and strive for truth and justice.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ, what exactly do they need to see contract for?
.

pourfour wrote:That's not just a picky point, it's fundamental. You don't sign up for a contract where you haven't seen all the terms. Unless you're completely stupid. [Edited for clarity]

would you really sign up to agree to something you had not read the terms of?  the PRL wanted the rest to buy a pig in a poke.  Utterly stupid adn even the clowns that run the unions were never going to go for that.

Remeber both the RFU and the LNR made disparaging noises about this

Are we talking about the compromise or the RCC? We were talking about the compromise, but now you're moving the goalposts.

Actually, though, a similar principle applies. The RCC never got beyond the point where the PRL and LNR were negotiating with the other teams and unions. There wasn't a "deal" on the table. Had it gone further, the parties would have agreed the tournament in principle and then drafted the relevant contracts. Sharing the details too early would compromise their negotiating position, especially given it wasn't clear who was in or not.

I'm not saying they handled the negotiations well - I have no basis for judging. But if were in the early stages of a negotiation with multiple parties, I'd want to get them all aligned first before declaring details.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Sin e, £20M is quite a lot for just the English games. If we assume the competition is similar to now that's just less than a third of the pool games not including the the finals AND the sponsors. Don't you have much faith in the pulling power of the rest?  Last season it was £45M total wasn't it?.

Thats not the English game, thats their Heineken Cup contribution. Why else would McGrath be wondering where the other 50K is coming from?

The BT contract was only for the English games. McGrath talks a bit of nonsense in that bit. He says that the French would bring a lot of money but the FFR have said that they won't approve it so there's no go there. Clearly the £70M was for if everyone was on board and then why would the French block it? He seems to have confused himself there (or deliberately twisting things for propaganda)

If it was for more than 20m, why is McGrath wondering where the rest of the money is coming from? Mick Dawson (Leinster CEO) also made comments to the effect that he didn't think the sponsorship was out there that the PRL were suggesting. Then the Rugby Show (which the PRL/RFU were involved in) were saying that finding sponsors was very difficult - most big sponsors made a decision about 3 years out from when it actually commenced and the conflict wasn't helping. The ERC are lucky to have Heineken on board as main sponsor.

As for the pulling power of the others - we know that the PRL made an approach to Guinness and they declined. Also from that Rugby Confernce, some media specialists said that a new European Cup would not be an attractive promotion vehicle (basically, the PRL have destroyed its image and the ERC are lucky to hang onto Heineken).

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/11/clubs-guinness-rugby-champions-cup-sponsor

So, undisclosed source making a vague claim against a direct statement refuting it    Hold on...could the media actually make stuff up? No..they wouldn't do that, they're full of integrity and strive for truth and justice.

OK, so they had no sponsors lined up! Thats worse.

HammerofThunor wrote:Whether the ERC 'hand the right' to sign the contract or not depends on what the contract says. For clarification I have no idea about business or law.

Assumption 1) If a party gives notice the participation agreement ends - basis, if not then all but two parties could have given notice and they would be tied into a competition. This seems unlikely so it makes sense for the PA to require renewal by the remaining parties if they wish.

Assumption 2) One member/representative of a union does not have the full power of the union board unless that power is specifically given to them.  In this case the power/rights of the ERC board members is defined in the Participation Agreement.

Assumption 3) Er...Quinsforever is Bruce Craig (he got really mad when I first suggested it)

The way they would have worked is that the Commercial Sub Committee would have overseen/vetted the proposal. It would then have been brought to Board level and it has been confirmed that it was approved.

The people who would have signed the agreement would more than likely have been the Chairman (Lux) and Derek McGrath (CEO) on behalf of the Board. One thing for sure, the approval would have been minuted at a Board Meeting and that is a valid agreement provided that there is a Quorum, you wouldn't need everyone for it to be valid.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Whether the ERC 'hand the right' to sign the contract or not depends on what the contract says. For clarification I have no idea about business or law.

Assumption 1) If a party gives notice the participation agreement ends - basis, if not then all but two parties could have given notice and they would be tied into a competition. This seems unlikely so it makes sense for the PA to require renewal by the remaining parties if they wish.

Assumption 2) One member/representative of a union does not have the full power of the union board unless that power is specifically given to them.  In this case the power/rights of the ERC board members is defined in the Participation Agreement.

Assumption 3) Er...Quinsforever is Bruce Craig (he got really mad when I first suggested it)

The way they would have worked is that the Commercial Sub Committee would have overseen/vetted the proposal. It would then have been brought to Board level and it has been confirmed that it was approved.

The people who would have signed the agreement would more than likely have been the Chairman (Lux) and Derek McGrath (CEO) on behalf of the Board. One thing for sure, the approval would have been minuted at a Board Meeting and that is a valid agreement provided that there is a Quorum, you wouldn't need everyone for it to be valid.

That depends on the wording of the constitution, Sin é.

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

What he's saying there is that French TV would bring more money but the FFR won't approve that. Clearly the £70 refers to everyone being on board, so why would the FFR block the TV deal. He doesn't make any sense in this bit.

Also, I didn't say it was worth more than £20M. I said that it was for just a third of the games. You would also have the sale of the other 2/3 of the games. Assuming that each league has the same pulling power that would £60M.

As for sponsors, do you have to the bit about Heineken continuing to sponsor the ERC? I must have missed it.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Whether the ERC 'hand the right' to sign the contract or not depends on what the contract says. For clarification I have no idea about business or law.

Assumption 1) If a party gives notice the participation agreement ends - basis, if not then all but two parties could have given notice and they would be tied into a competition. This seems unlikely so it makes sense for the PA to require renewal by the remaining parties if they wish.

Assumption 2) One member/representative of a union does not have the full power of the union board unless that power is specifically given to them.  In this case the power/rights of the ERC board members is defined in the Participation Agreement.

Assumption 3) Er...Quinsforever is Bruce Craig (he got really mad when I first suggested it)

The way they would have worked is that the Commercial Sub Committee would have overseen/vetted the proposal. It would then have been brought to Board level and it has been confirmed that it was approved.

The people who would have signed the agreement would more than likely have been the Chairman (Lux) and Derek McGrath (CEO) on behalf of the Board. One thing for sure, the approval would have been minuted at a Board Meeting and that is a valid agreement provided that there is a Quorum, you wouldn't need everyone for it to be valid.

That depends on the wording of the constitution, Sin é.

Articles of Association (ERC is a Company limited by guarantee). From what I've heard it was a unaminous decision at the Board meeting to take Sky's offer. Not sure if the PRL reps were attending the Board meetings at that stage. Probably not - as it would have been a serious conflict of interests if they were.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Whether the ERC 'hand the right' to sign the contract or not depends on what the contract says. For clarification I have no idea about business or law.

Assumption 1) If a party gives notice the participation agreement ends - basis, if not then all but two parties could have given notice and they would be tied into a competition. This seems unlikely so it makes sense for the PA to require renewal by the remaining parties if they wish.

Assumption 2) One member/representative of a union does not have the full power of the union board unless that power is specifically given to them.  In this case the power/rights of the ERC board members is defined in the Participation Agreement.

Assumption 3) Er...Quinsforever is Bruce Craig (he got really mad when I first suggested it)

The way they would have worked is that the Commercial Sub Committee would have overseen/vetted the proposal. It would then have been brought to Board level and it has been confirmed that it was approved.

The people who would have signed the agreement would more than likely have been the Chairman (Lux) and Derek McGrath (CEO) on behalf of the Board. One thing for sure, the approval would have been minuted at a Board Meeting and that is a valid agreement provided that there is a Quorum, you wouldn't need everyone for it to be valid.

But the ERC board only has the power to sell TV rights on behalf of the union duet to the PA. It would require the RFU board to agree and extension to the PA to Grant them this power. This hasn't happened to my knowledge (and hadn't happened before the TV deal was agreed).

Sin é wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Whether the ERC 'hand the right' to sign the contract or not depends on what the contract says. For clarification I have no idea about business or law.

Assumption 1) If a party gives notice the participation agreement ends - basis, if not then all but two parties could have given notice and they would be tied into a competition. This seems unlikely so it makes sense for the PA to require renewal by the remaining parties if they wish.

Assumption 2) One member/representative of a union does not have the full power of the union board unless that power is specifically given to them.  In this case the power/rights of the ERC board members is defined in the Participation Agreement.

Assumption 3) Er...Quinsforever is Bruce Craig (he got really mad when I first suggested it)

The way they would have worked is that the Commercial Sub Committee would have overseen/vetted the proposal. It would then have been brought to Board level and it has been confirmed that it was approved.

The people who would have signed the agreement would more than likely have been the Chairman (Lux) and Derek McGrath (CEO) on behalf of the Board. One thing for sure, the approval would have been minuted at a Board Meeting and that is a valid agreement provided that there is a Quorum, you wouldn't need everyone for it to be valid.

That depends on the wording of the constitution, Sin é.

Articles of Association (ERC is a Company limited by guarantee). From what I've heard it was a unaminous decision at the Board meeting to take Sky's offer. Not sure if the PRL reps were attending the Board meetings at that stage. Probably not - as it would have been a serious conflict of interests if they were.

Wheeler WAS at the meeting and said that the deal was no voted on at the 6th June meeting or any later ones.

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

What he's saying there is that French TV would bring more money but the FFR won't approve that. Clearly the £70 refers to everyone being on board, so why would the FFR block the TV deal. He doesn't make any sense in this bit.

Also, I didn't say it was worth more than £20M. I said that it was for just a third of the games. You would also have the sale of the other 2/3 of the games. Assuming that each league has the same pulling power that would £60M.

As for sponsors, do you have to the bit about Heineken continuing to sponsor the ERC? I must have missed it.

You think that the LNR*/FFR were going to come up with 50m?

(*Since then, Goze has said that they were only using the new comp to help with negotiations with the FFR). I seriouly doubt that the French would have handed over 50m!


By the way, I saw somewhere today that the LNR are being sued by Canal+ for their handling of the tendering process. LNR cannot sign their new aweseome media contract!

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Whether the ERC 'hand the right' to sign the contract or not depends on what the contract says. For clarification I have no idea about business or law.

Assumption 1) If a party gives notice the participation agreement ends - basis, if not then all but two parties could have given notice and they would be tied into a competition. This seems unlikely so it makes sense for the PA to require renewal by the remaining parties if they wish.

Assumption 2) One member/representative of a union does not have the full power of the union board unless that power is specifically given to them.  In this case the power/rights of the ERC board members is defined in the Participation Agreement.

Assumption 3) Er...Quinsforever is Bruce Craig (he got really mad when I first suggested it)

The way they would have worked is that the Commercial Sub Committee would have overseen/vetted the proposal. It would then have been brought to Board level and it has been confirmed that it was approved.

The people who would have signed the agreement would more than likely have been the Chairman (Lux) and Derek McGrath (CEO) on behalf of the Board. One thing for sure, the approval would have been minuted at a Board Meeting and that is a valid agreement provided that there is a Quorum, you wouldn't need everyone for it to be valid.

That depends on the wording of the constitution, Sin é.

Articles of Association (ERC is a Company limited by guarantee). From what I've heard it was a unaminous decision at the Board meeting to take Sky's offer. Not sure if the PRL reps were attending the Board meetings at that stage. Probably not - as it would have been a serious conflict of interests if they were.

Wheeler WAS at the meeting and said that the deal was no voted on at the 6th June meeting or any later ones.

Is Richie backing him up?

Sin é wrote:

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

What he's saying there is that French TV would bring more money but the FFR won't approve that. Clearly the £70 refers to everyone being on board, so why would the FFR block the TV deal. He doesn't make any sense in this bit.

Also, I didn't say it was worth more than £20M. I said that it was for just a third of the games. You would also have the sale of the other 2/3 of the games. Assuming that each league has the same pulling power that would £60M.

As for sponsors, do you have to the bit about Heineken continuing to sponsor the ERC? I must have missed it.

You think that the LNR*/FFR were going to come up with 50m?

(*Since then, Goze has said that they were only using the new comp to help with negotiations with the FFR). I seriouly doubt that the French would have handed over 50m!


By the way, I saw somewhere today that the LNR are being sued by Canal+ for their handling of the tendering process. LNR cannot sign their new aweseome media contract!

Are you doing it deliberately? Do you not realise that 2/3 of the games are not just the French games? Or do you think the Irish, welsh, Scottish and Italian games are worthless? I know you've already said that sponsorship of a competition with these 6 nations competing in is worthless. Thing is if BT are willing to pay £20M for the English home games, they might pay that again for the English away games. You never know. Or Sky could get in on the action.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Wheeler WAS at the meeting and said that the deal was no voted on at the 6th June meeting or any later ones.

Is Richie backing him up?

Why on Earth would he? The ERC made a statement, the PRL refuted it, there was no come back.