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

HammerofThunor wrote:

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.

Because it seems highly unlikely that McGrath would claim something like that if it wasn't true.The Welsh & French club representatives would have backed up the assertion.

ERC

"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

PRL

"We also note ERC's reference to its board meeting on 6 June, 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC board meeting. In any case, any such deal could not have included matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs."

I doubt either lied. But I still don't see the relevance as the ERC board did not have the power to sign an TV deal beyond 2014, with the union boards either given them extensions to the power OR the union boards ratifying it at a later date.

HammerofThunor wrote:

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.

What I read is that the BT/English deal for the broadcasting of the RCC Cup was 20m. Then the PRL/LNR were going to start from scratch and come up with another 50m. The point is that they didn't really have a competition (seem to remember some jokes about McCafferty top priority being a new logo).

A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush for starters (but we all know that the real issue was governance). The Unions were never, ever going to let clubs run the competition.

HammerofThunor wrote:ERC

"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

PRL

"We also note ERC's reference to its board meeting on 6 June, 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC board meeting. In any case, any such deal could not have included matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs."

I doubt either lied.  But I still don't see the relevance as the ERC board did not have the power to sign an TV deal beyond 2014, with the union boards either given them extensions to the power OR the union boards ratifying it at a later date.

The ERC didn't claim a specific deal was voted on. It did say that the ERC should conclude a new four-year deal with SKY.

PRL are claiming that no specific deal was done which the ERC hasn't claimed.

The irony of the PRL saying the ERC had no right to sell the English rights when it could be argued that they had no rights to sell the English rights to a non-existent competition that might involve cross-border teams or the English teams playing against other clubs/provinces/regions from the UK.

Are you doing it to annoy me that you won't recognise that the Unions own the company called ERC Rugby Ltd. They are the major shareholders and they own most of the shares (LNR were given a few shares by the LNR). They have the authority to sign any media deal they like for the future. The Unions approve of the Sky media deal. They don't approve of the PRL/BT deal.

If they didn't the Unions would not have backed the ERC as they are doing now.

Sin e - you will not convince the PRL apologists. Some on here have swallowed the PRL nonsense wholesale and keep on parroting their lies as the truth. Its clear to any fairminded person that while few come out of this well the PRL have behaved appallingly and are only concerned with more money for them - not for players, not for fans but simply for the contents of their wallets and will cause untold damage to the game simply to get thier way.

Fortuatly the PRL bluff has been well and truely called and they are the mainlosers along with the english clubs and players.

We will have a european cup, it will be based on the agreements made and the english clubs have a choice - to join or to leave.

The PRL are isolated and reviled by all other stakeholders and have nothing left as a bargaining position

The ERC is a separate company that is owned by the unions. But it's powers are defined in the PA agree. They don't have all the powers of the unions just because they're owned by the unions.

Do you actually believe that the ERC can do what ever it likes indefinitely? As you said, you would need a quorum, so if the, let's say IRFU didn't turn up to a meeting the ERC (which is partially owned by the IRFU) could tie the IRFU up to something above and beyond he current PA.

Again, you might be right, and if you are all the unions need to be shot for signing up to something so ridiculous.

The BT was worth £20M for Europe. That's what he said. The BT only covers the English home games. The other £40-50M would be 'projected' to come from from the games of other participants, French, Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italian, and sponsorship.

And actually PRL do have some rights to sell and they said that the wording of the EPS contract means all domestic games other than HEC and ACC. The question is whether the deal referred to just the league games or everything other than ERC competitions. The fact it doesn't exist yet is irrelevant. Either the English clubs will be playing in Europe, in which case BT will show the games, or they won't be.

So either the unions have signed over unilateral, indefinite power to another body (ERC) or the ERC power is defined by the PA, which runs out in 2014 (assuming again that the unions wouldn't be stupid enough to be forces to remain part if everyone else had given notice).

HammerofThunor wrote:The ERC is a separate company that is owned by the unions. But it's powers are defined in the PA agree. They don't have all the powers of the unions just because they're owned by the unions.

Its powers are defined by its Articles of Association.

Philip Browne (IRFU CEO) is a director of European Rugby Ltd. He is also a Director of IRFU.

Do you actually believe that the ERC can do what ever it likes indefinitely? As you said, you would need a quorum, so if the, let's say IRFU didn't turn up to a meeting the ERC (which is partially owned by the IRFU) could tie the IRFU up to something above and beyond he current PA.

The ERC could never do what it likes - it has to do what its owners & directors like - the Unions. The Board of Directors of the ERC (the Unions) would meet regularly and they would direct the staff of the ERC what to do.

I have experience from being involved in a sporting organisation (on the board) and basically what happened was the Board & staff would develop a Strategic Plan (usually 3 years) through consultation with its club affiliates. The Professional staff were given that plan to work to, and the Board would meet once a months to review progress and depending on issues, I would have a lot of dealings with the professional staff.

I also have experience myself where I was working to the direction of a Board of Directors and I had to report to them once a month at a Board meeting. I would frequently discuss matters with Board members outside of that as well, so your assumption that an organisation like the ERC would do what it likes and when it likes is ridiculous.

Again, you might be right, and if you are all the unions need to be shot for signing up to something so ridiculous.

I think it was a master move by the Unions. It sure stopped the PRL & LNR taking over the running of European Rugby.

The BT was worth £20M for Europe. That's what he said. The BT only covers the English home games. The other £40-50M would be 'projected' to come from from the games of other participants, French, Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italian, and sponsorship.

Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Even at the PRL/RFU Rugby Conference they were saying that companies made their sponsorship decisions 3 years out at least and that the present disharmony of european rugby would put most sponsors off (i.e., the rumours about the PRL and Guinness - it was extremely naive of the PRL to think that Guinness would try and alienate the Irish on that one!)

And actually PRL do have some rights to sell and they said that the wording of the EPS contract means all domestic games other than HEC and ACC. The question is whether the deal referred to just the league games or everything other than ERC competitions. The fact it doesn't exist yet is irrelevant. Either the English clubs will be playing in Europe, in which case BT will show the games, or they won't be.

So either the unions have signed over unilateral, indefinite power to another body (ERC) or the ERC power is defined by the PA, which runs out in 2014 (assuming again that the unions wouldn't be stupid enough to be forces to remain part if everyone else had given notice).

Doesn't the PRL agreement with the RFU say that they have to at least run it by the RFU. According to McGrath in that article, the RFU had no idea what was going on.

The ERC will do what its Board Members / Shareholders (the Unions) will do what they tell it to do.

There's a great deal of spin from the propaganda merchants on both sides of the Argument with regards to TV deals .

1) Why are people talking about needing to generate £50M in addition to the BT deal, per year to match the SKY deal? The SKY deal is worth £70M over 4 years so its £17.5M per year not £70M

2) ERC's projected TOTAL income for 2013/14 is £44M.

3) What is the European portion of the BT worth? Some people are mentioning £20M a year. That seems fairly close to me given it was widely reported that the BT deal was a 50% increase over the existing ESPN/SKY deal for the AP games. That was £54M over 3 years, so the Domestic part of the BT deal may be £81M, leaving £71M (or £23.7M a year) for the proposed European comp.

4) What is that BT money for? Is it all games involving AP teams or as seems more likely AP teams home games.

5) Sky signed up with ERC after the AP and LNR had given notice so what were they actually signing up for? Do we assume its for UK rights to all games without any AP teams.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why not disband the ERC and let the 6N committee govern it, assuming the FFR/LNR axis would agree given their preference for FIRA.

Go with the revenue and qualifications deals already agreed in principle.

Let SKY and BT keep their deals (assuming they agree but as we stand BT have nothing and SKY have no teams from their biggest market) so:
Sky = 17.5M and BT 20-23M so that's around £40M a year already for UK rights alone.
Add a big deal from France. (£20M+ seems plausible as it's the biggest and richest rugby TV market) and smaller deals from Ireland and Italy.
Add some Sponsors (assuming they have not been put off by the whole sorry circus)
Voila, there's your £70M a year, well up on ERC's £44M.

Of course it wont happen given the clowns in charge of trying to sort it out 

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The ERC is a separate company that is owned by the unions. But it's powers are defined in the PA agree. They don't have all the powers of the unions just because they're owned by the unions.

Its powers are defined by its Articles of Association.

Philip Browne (IRFU CEO) is a director of European Rugby Ltd. He is also a Director of IRFU.

Do you actually believe that the ERC can do what ever it likes indefinitely? As you said, you would need a quorum, so if the, let's say IRFU didn't turn up to a meeting the ERC (which is partially owned by the IRFU) could tie the IRFU up to something above and beyond he current PA.

The ERC could never do what it likes - it has to do what its owners & directors like - the Unions. The Board of Directors of the ERC (the Unions) would meet regularly and they would direct the staff of the ERC what to do.

I have experience from being involved in a sporting organisation (on the board) and basically what happened was the Board & staff would develop a Strategic Plan (usually 3 years) through consultation with its club affiliates. The Professional staff were given that plan to work to, and the Board would meet once a months to review progress and depending on issues, I would have a lot of dealings with the professional staff.

I also have experience myself where I was working to the direction of a Board of Directors and I had to report to them once a month at a Board meeting. I would frequently discuss matters with Board members outside of that as well, so your assumption that an organisation like the ERC would do what it likes and when it likes is ridiculous.

Again, you might be right, and if you are all the unions need to be shot for signing up to something so ridiculous.

I think it was a master move by the Unions. It sure stopped the PRL & LNR taking over the running of European Rugby.

The BT was worth £20M for Europe. That's what he said. The BT only covers the English home games. The other £40-50M would be 'projected' to come from from the games of other participants, French, Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italian, and sponsorship.

Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Even at the PRL/RFU Rugby Conference they were saying that companies made their sponsorship decisions 3 years out at least and that the present disharmony of european rugby would put most sponsors off (i.e., the rumours about the PRL and Guinness - it was extremely naive of the PRL to think that Guinness would try and alienate the Irish on that one!)

And actually PRL do have some rights to sell and they said that the wording of the EPS contract means all domestic games other than HEC and ACC. The question is whether the deal referred to just the league games or everything other than ERC competitions. The fact it doesn't exist yet is irrelevant. Either the English clubs will be playing in Europe, in which case BT will show the games, or they won't be.

So either the unions have signed over unilateral, indefinite power to another body (ERC) or the ERC power is defined by the PA, which runs out in 2014 (assuming again that the unions wouldn't be stupid enough to be forces to remain part if everyone else had given notice).

Doesn't the PRL agreement with the RFU say that they have to at least run it by the RFU. According to McGrath in that article, the RFU had no idea what was going on.

The ERC will do what its Board Members / Shareholders (the Unions) will do what they tell it to do.

Cool.

Regarding the EPS, as far as I'm aware the PRL have full control over the commercial aspects of their teams within the current agreement which last up to 2016.

andyi wrote:There's a great deal of spin from the propaganda merchants on both sides of the Argument with regards to TV deals.

The PRL know the value of the Sky deal for european rugby. The Unions/ERC have to speculate what the BT Eurepean deal is worth as they have not been given any specific details or seen the contract.

1) Why are people talking about needing to generate £50M in addition to the BT deal, per year to match the SKY deal? The SKY deal is worth £70M over 4 years so its £17.5M per year not £70M

Because the CEO of ERC speculated in an interview that the only offer on the table was 20m for a PRL European rugby competition, not 60-70m as claimed by the PRL. (see link above to interview).

2) ERC's projected TOTAL income for 2013/14 is £44M.

Where did you get that projected figure from? ERC Total income (from annual accounts lodged turnover was 51,669,416 EUR in 2012)

3) What is the European portion of the BT worth? Some people are mentioning £20M a year. That seems fairly close to me given it was widely reported that the BT deal was a 50% increase over the existing ESPN/SKY deal for the AP games. That was £54M over 3 years, so the Domestic part of the BT deal may be £81M, leaving £71M (or £23.7M a year) for the proposed European comp.

That seems to be close enough to what McGrath was saying.

4) What is that BT money for? Is it all games involving AP teams or as seems more likely AP teams home games.

Why does no one, especially the Unions, not know what its worth?

5) Sky signed up with ERC after the AP and LNR had given notice so what were they actually signing up for? Do we assume its for UK rights to all games without any AP teams.

Sky have signed up to broadcast a European Rugby Cup organised by the ERC/Unions.

I don't know why anyone is questioning this - BT/PRL have signed up to broadcast a competition that doesn't exist, and whats more, prevents the PRL teams participating in any other european competition.

So why not disband the ERC and let the 6N committee govern it, assuming the FFR/LNR axis would agree given their preference for FIRA.

Pointless changing to Six Nations Company (who declined to take it on anyway) because the Six Nations Company is a similar type setup to the ERC (same board directors etc., etc.,) - they just organise a different set of competitions. John Feehan the Six Nations CEO, is also CEO of Celtic League Ltd and British & Irish Lions.

The PRL were going to have exactly the same kind of problems with the Six Nations Company as they have with the ERC. The Unions are never going to let the PRL/Clubs control the commercial aspects of any cross border rugby competition.

Go with the revenue and qualifications deals already agreed in principle.

Let SKY and BT keep their deals (assuming they agree but as we stand BT have nothing and SKY have no teams from their biggest market) so:
Sky = 17.5M and BT 20-23M so that's around £40M a year already for UK rights alone.
Add a big deal from France. (£20M+ seems plausible as it's the biggest and richest rugby TV market) and smaller deals from Ireland and Italy.
Add some Sponsors (assuming they have not been put off by the whole sorry circus)
Voila, there's your £70M a year, well up on ERC's £44M.

Of course it wont happen given the clowns in charge of trying to sort it out 

You are making a lot of assumptions there which are fairly key issues to be resolved,

Sky v BT battle.
PRL/Club control of cross border competitions.
No sponsor would touch this competition now because of what has happened. ERC are lucky to hold onto Heineken.

Have ERC held on to Heineken? I know they extended their sponsorship to this year but I haven't seen anything indicating they renewed. Could you post a link?

HammerofThunor wrote:Have ERC held on to Heineken? I know they extended their sponsorship to this year but I haven't seen anything indicating they renewed. Could you post a link?

I don't have a link. I'd imagine that the PRL would be shouting it from the rooftops though if they haven't renewed.

Heineken have been there right from the beginning (i.e., before the English clubs were involved in the competition). They stayed with the competition when the English left in '99.
They have stayed with the competition even though its the 'H' cup in France.

From that you can deduce, they have an excellent relationship with the ERC and they value the participation of the Celts & Italians.

Sine. Thanks for proving my point with regard to spin    Rather than take any of my points/question at face value you simply use them to spout the usual pro ERC stuff. I was trying to offer some ideas and possible solutions. I'm not taking anyone's side by the way.

Do you work for ERC? If not they should really be paying you to be fair!

As for ERC revenue prediction. Here you are:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10316250/Anglo-French-Heineken-Cup-breakaway-proposal-is-offensive-claims-European-Rugby-Cups-Jean-Pierre-Lux.html

Thanks for the link.

I've simply pointed out the key issues which seem insurmountable.

The Unions sticking point is Governance (they have to organise and be in total control of it). They have already agreed to revenue splits, reducing to 20 teams etc. etc.

The PRL's sticking point is their contract with BT and control of the commercial aspects of the competition.

The French clubs don't really care.

Sin é wrote:

You are making a lot of assumptions there which are fairly key issues to be resolved,

Sky v BT battle.
PRL/Club control of cross border competitions.
No sponsor would touch this competition now because of what has happened. ERC are lucky to hold onto Heineken.

Sky v BT:
BT have nothing at the moment. Sky have no games involving English teams at all. They both gain something with shared coverage, although SKY may prefer to have exclusive rights to the competition even without teams from their biggest market. We can always hope.

PRL/Club control of cross border competitions.
I wouldn't give them control of the competition. I would give them (committee representing all the clubs/regions) control of the commercial deals for that competition to maximise revenues.

Sponsor:
If Heineken are happy to sponsor a competition without the AP clubs, then offer them the same deal for a competition with them. They get more "Bang for their Buck" and it gives some sense of continuity to the competition.  

As for the 6N's committee taking charge, if it meant the AP clubs coming back into the fold, then surely for the good of the game they would do it?

The rest have very carefully stated that it need not be the ERC to allow the PRL a face saving way back in since for some weird reason the ERC seems to be a sticking point. It doesn't matter who runs it so long as its the unions. I would not givetr ht PRL any control of anything. They have proved themselves to be not worth trusting.

Sin é wrote:I don't have a link. I'd imagine that the PRL would be shouting it from the rooftops though if they haven't renewed.

Heineken have been there right from the beginning (i.e., before the English clubs were involved in the competition). They stayed with the competition when the English left in '99.
They have stayed with the competition even though its the 'H' cup in France.

From that you can deduce, they have an excellent relationship with the ERC and they value the participation of the Celts & Italians.

OK, so it was an assumption based on the fact that the current deal runs out this year and there has been no indication they're extending it? Cool

TJ wrote:The rest have very carefully stated that it need not be the ERC to allow the PRL a face saving way back in since for some weird reason the ERC seems to be a sticking point.  It doesn't matter who runs it so long as its the unions.  I would not givetr ht PRL any control of anything.  They have proved themselves to be not worth trusting.

It specifically states that it is the same organisation. Why do you think the name of it is important? It's not the fact that it's called the ERC that's important to the PRL, it's the fact that organisation has a TV deal with SKY that is mutually exclusive with the PRL BT deal.

Hammer -wrong again. The PRL have specifically refused to have anything to do with the ERC - not because of the TV deal but for some weird reasons of their own. They stated this prior to the sky deal

The name is important because this allows the rest to say and a successor organisation is acceptable to the rest- it does not have to be the ERC and allows the PRL a face saving way back in.

Once again you confuse PRL lies with the truth. Be a little more sceptical of the lies coming from the PRL

Why will the PRL not let anyone even the RFU see the agreement they have made? Why are we expected to sign up for a deal we do not know the contents of?

TJ wrote:Hammer -wrong again.  The PRL have specifically refused to have anything to do with the ERC - not because of the TV deal but for some weird reasons of their own.  They stated this prior to the sky deal

In that case, if they did say that, then they clearly have an issue with the organisation itself.

The name is important because this allows the rest to say and a successor organisation is acceptable to the rest- it does not have to be the ERC and allows the PRL a face saving way back in.

It's not a successor organisation. It's the same one.

Once again you confuse PRL lies with the truth.  Be a little more sceptical of the lies coming from the PRL

Why will the PRL not let anyone even the RFU see the agreement they have made?  Why are we expected to sign up for a deal we do not know the contents of?

What lies? It's been clearly said several times that the RFU are the only ones who've seen the TV deal. Have the PRO12 shown the TV deal they have with Sky to anyone? Why should they? You wouldn't be expected to sign up to a deal that you don't know know the contents of. You would be expected to sign up to a Participation Agreement completely outlining you're requirements and obligations. The BT contract is for the broadcast of the PRL games...why does that concern you? What do you think is in it? The home nation unions see the contract for the broadcast of the summer tours? Do we share the contracts with the SH sides for the AI? I wouldn't have thought so.

Whjy should we see the BT deal for the RCC? - because it includes our games and as you say it would be stupid to sign up to something unless we know the contents but that is what the PRL tried to railroad everyone into doing.

It doesn't include your games. It includes the English games. And all the money for these games is given to the European pot. Other than getting £X for the games what more is there to know?

Well that is not what Wray and co said. they told us the BT contract included billions for all the games and as a result we would all get billions more and extra ice cream.

If the BT contract does not include our games how can the PRL tell us how much we would receive from it which they have done.

TJ, seriously man. Put your effort into something worth while. Your spending most of your life beating the same drum!

Its fun to poke the PRL propagandists and to show up the nonsense they spout. Its only a few idle moments between games :-)

TJ wrote:Well that is not what Wray and co said.  they told us the BT contract included billions for all the games and as a result we would all get billions more and extra ice cream.

If the BT contract does not include our games how can the PRL tell us how much we would receive from it which they have done.

It's based on projections. Did you not read any of Sin e's posts? It's based on the assumption that the other games aren't worthless.

The PRL specifically stated that the RFU gave them control over their TV rights in the 2008 EPS agreement. It's possible for that to give them control over the English home games. It's impossible for it to give them control over any other games. Make of that what you will.

I disagree with some of Sin e's points and the inferences he takes from statements or the reading of the situation. I don't necessarily think he's wrong as we don't have the information, just that it's not fact, yet. However he also posts links and backs up his statements with references and explains his thinking. I'm sure he doesn't give a    but I respect his point.

You, however, not so much (and again I'm sure you don't give a   ). You seem to rabbit on about nonsense, forget what actual facts we know and make up your own to beat people with. A little hint though, attacking anyone who doesn't agree with as delusional or PRL cheerleaders doesn't go down well with the Irish (or anyone)  But I'm sure you're having fun and that's what life is about, right? Enjoying yourself, so fill your boots.

Hammer - You are the one who makes up stuff top suit your own position and keep on doing so.  I have been 100% correct so far in this debate.  I have made up nothing just been able to see thru the bullshine

These boards are full of folk who are delusional PRL cheerleaders.  Folk who appear to believe all the nonsense and outright lies from the PRL and ignore any facts that show their heros have feet of clay.

the entertainment is in watching people like you tie themselves in logical knots and in pointing out their fallacies and inconsistencies

Yo do one here -

The PRL specifically stated that the RFU gave them control over their TV rights in the 2008 EPS agreement

 what you fail to say is the RFU state very clearly that this did not include the full period the PRL sold the rights to games for.  Games that do not exist the agreement was 2007 not 2008 and runs out in 2015 - but the prl apparantly sold the rights to their games until 2018. so the PRL sold the rights togames that do not exist, that they did not have the right to sell, in breach of their own agreement with the RFU

this is the truth - but as it does not suit your pro PRL narrative you ignore it.

"These boards are full of folk who are delusional PRL cheerleaders"

These boards are full of folk who have an opinion that they think is right. Truth is none of us know what is fully going on. Including yourself...

Fact is we only know whats reported in the media and we all know how much we can trust them.

nathan - I can distinguish opinion from fact and agree with you about folk who confuse the two. M<y opinions have been shown to be right tho. Right from the beginning I said the French would compromise with the rest and leave the PRL isolated. I was repeatedly told this was nonsense -= but look what has happened. I was right

TJ wrote:nathan - I can distinguish opinion from fact and agree with you about folk who confuse the two.  M<y opinions have been shown to be right tho.  Right from the beginning I said the French would compromise with the rest and leave the PRL isolated.  I was repeatedly told this was nonsense -= but look what has happened.  I was right

Well good for you, would you like a badge?

i do think you have blurred the line between hoped and guessed...

nathan wrote:

i do think you have blurred the line between hoped and guessed...

actually it was really really obvious this would happen.

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:

i do think you have blurred the line between hoped and guessed...

 actually it was really really obvious this would happen.

I know, i'm surprised people haven't mentioned it to you before. Just call me Sherlock.

really obvious the French would compromise and leave the PRL isolated

it was also obvious that the money would go to 1/3 for each league, and qualifying spots significantly reduced for rabo. and those were things you said 100% would and should not happen.

the november statement by the 5 unions reaffirmed those agreements on financials and qualification arrived at by all 6 unions.

and its a bit early to be banging the victory drum yet, as it doesnt look like this is anywhere near over yet.

quinsforever wrote:it was also obvious that the money would go to 1/3 for each league, and qualifying spots significantly reduced for rabo. and those were things you said 100% would and should not happen.

the november statement by the 5 unions reaffirmed those agreements on financials and qualification arrived at by all 6 unions.

and its a bit early to be banging the victory drum yet, as it doesnt look like this is anywhere near over yet.

I am not banging the victory drum - and I did not say those things would not happen just that they would not be fair. - and the PRL did not get offered the reduction to 6 rabo teams they wanted nor is it a simple 1/3 split on financials. I always accepted a reduction in rabo spots but wanted the unions to hold out for 8 minimum - going to 7 was a step too far IMO

However since the PRL are refusing to play then it will not be any of those things and the PRL are going to find it very hard to get as good an offer again

TJ wrote:Hammer - You are the one who makes up stuff top suit your own position and keep on doing so.  I have been 100% correct so far in this debate.  I have made up nothing just been able to see thru the bullshine

These boards are full of folk who are delusional PRL cheerleaders.  Folk who appear to believe all the nonsense and outright lies from the PRL and ignore any facts that show their heros have feet of clay.

the entertainment is in watching people like you tie themselves in logical knots and in pointing out their fallacies and inconsistencies

Yo do one here -

The PRL specifically stated that the RFU gave them control over their TV rights in the 2008 EPS agreement

 what you fail to say is the RFU state very clearly that this did not include the full period the PRL sold the rights to games for.  Games that do not exist the agreement was 2007 not 2008 and runs out in 2015 - but the prl apparantly sold the rights to their games until 2018.  so the PRL sold the rights togames that do not exist, that they did not have the right to sell, in breach of their own agreement with the RFU

this is the truth - but as it does not suit your pro PRL narrative you ignore it.

To EPS agreement was made in 2007 but it runs from the beginning of the 2008-09 season and ends in the 2015-16 (Http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/november/news%20articles/rfuandprlsignneweightyearagreement) Also, I raised the point over them selling the games beyond the current EPS deal when the BT deal was first made. I said it would be interesting if the deal stands as it was made when they did have the rights or whether the RFU would have a say, potentially putting the RFU in a strong place come negotiations.

But I fail to see where I made anything up. The quote you put up, the PRL did claim the RFU gave them the rights as part of the EPS agreement.

Yes - and they sold the rights to games up to 2018 which they did not have the right to do. Even if ( and its a big if) they had the rights to sell them to 2015 they did not have the right to sell them to 2018.

Can you not read or do you just not bother?

You accepted this point after I pointed it out.  earlier you tried to claim the PRL were within their rights to make this deal.  Its not even clear they could sell the rights to their own home games up to 2015.  let alone all games involving their clubs up to 2018.  Its just a simple example of you misrepresenting the truth.  Trying to pretend the PRL are right when clearly they are not. I quoted you above - making a clearly incorrect statement

No I didn't. I said the PRL said they believed they had the rights, whether they did or not depends on the exact wording of the PA deal. Given that nothing has been said about the deal up until 2018 suggests it's not an issue. I would have thought you'd have made a bigger deal out of the fact they sold 3 years of European rugby from 2014-15 season meaning it runs until 2016-17, again beyond 2016.

The PRL specifically stated that the RFU gave them control over their TV rights in the 2008 EPS agreement

Is what you said. However tho they have claimed this, it simply is not true. An example of you attempting to mislead to make your case stronger - now you deny you did this.

How is that not me saying that the PRL said the RFU gave them the rights?

HammerofThunor wrote:Can you not read or do you just not bother?

Honestly Hammer, you're wasting your breath with TJ. He's a nice enough chap but is utterly obsessed with the PRL and only his version of events is Fact... everyone else who disagrees with him is talking nonesense.

Hammer - its a simple point. I merely used you as an example of the folk who parrot the PRL line. You said

The PRL specifically stated that the RFU gave them control over their TV rights in the 2008 EPS agreement

without stating that they did not have the rights to sell the last couple of years without doubt and there is even doubt they had the right to sell anything. You did not qualify this statement in any way when you made it.

Its simply an example of the way some folk on here parrot PRL propaganda as truth. I can find many more such as the weird lie that the PRL subsidise everyone else - whereas infact there is no transfer of money thus no subsidy. Just because the english viwers pay the most it does not mean the english clubs generate the money - they do not. the HC generates the money.

Not everyone who disagrees with me is talking nonsense - but those who parrot the PRL propaganda as facts are.

facts are few and far between in this debate. One fact is tho that the PRL have created a lot of spin and propaganda which some of you have swallowed hok line and sinker and look ridiculous as a result.


Many many examples of this. the PRL put out spin and lies and some of you are gullible enough to believe them. Some of us have the ability to actually understand what is going on.

Like there is no need for anyone else to see the BT contract before signing up to it. what a piece of nonsense. all the claims of billions of pounds for all - but then you claim this is merely projections so we don't need to see the contracts!

The logical distortions people make in order to attempt to make the PRL look good is laughable and transparent.

We can all see this - those of us not wedded to the PRL line- as can the unions hence the pig in a poke was not bought. Hence the PRL are isolated and have no significant allies and look like they have cut their nose off to spite their faces.

& how is it so different to ERC selling Sky the rights to a comp for which there was no agreement in place?

Because the ERC had the right to do so and the agreement of all to do so including the RFU? And anyway what is that to do with my point about the folk who parrot the PRL spin as the truth?

Hammer - the PRL have claimed all sorts of things - almost all of them utter rubbish and despite being quoted on many times by the PRL apologists shown to be nonsense

You seem to be confusing yourself. The bit you quoted (I think) was used to suggest that the PRL had sold the rights to their own games only. That was all.

Rather than counter that with other 'facts'/information you just go on a rant about people repeating what the PRL have stated and how they always lie.

Hammer - it was the way you used that quote that I was arguing with.  You appeared to use it to justify the PRLs actions.  It was just an example of oft repeated tactics by some on here.

How can they sell the rights to games no one has agreed to play?

If the BT contract is so good then why is no one allowed to see it?

Its not even clear what the various sums bandied around are for.

TJ wrote:How can they sell the rights to games no one has agreed to play?.

That's very easy. It's just a conditional clause. Plenty of contracts deal with potential outcomes. Large parts of the financial world are built on such arrangements. If that's your stumbling block, then we can clear this one up right now.