London Welsh in the Pro12 ? The subject just will not go away.

First topic message reminder :

London Welsh chairman Bleddyn Phillips says the club would be open to quitting the English game to join the Pro12. I thought this was now put to bed, but now the head honcho at London Welsh is telling people he would like to see it happen, do you agree with what he has to say ? Especially about the travelling to London rather than further afield, an obvious dig at the Italians, he also says "There would be a degree of support behind the possibility." I don't think there would be much of a chance of LW joining the Pro12, I just think he is trying to cause a stir because of this ring fenced Aviva idea, I would rather see a North Wales region in the Pro12 before London Welsh. Here take a read:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/33347545

And back around to how would that help the English.

I know we are all (some more than others..)

But I can only see two likely scenarios where English teams might get involved in something like this

1) The european cup fails and there is space and a need for more games plus funding etc
2) A group of English teams decide to redefine RFU as Rugby FU and split away to form a new super league. And to be honest if they were mad enough to do so it would more likely be something involving the French and even SA rather than solely a British/Irish thing.

LIW - you've got it right, the only possible circumstances under which this sort of league would be viable would be in the event of the richer PRL clubs breaking away from the rest and setting up their own competition, maybe with the French or the Saffers, however the consequences of some form of league breakaway would be right up there with the split that ended up with rugby league as they'd effectively be trying to run a seperate rugby franchise, rather like the recent issues in the US that resulted in clubs wasting their time and effort sorting out games that never took place.

Irish Londoner wrote:the only possible circumstances under which this sort of league would be viable would be in the event of the richer PRL clubs breaking away from the rest and setting up their own competition,

That is 100% not true though isn't it. It's absolute nonsense.

Go on then, I'll keep biting, to coin a phrase from my college days, what is the "historical inevitability" that will lead to the sunlit uplands of a B & I league where everyone loves each other and all the bad feeling of the last two years will be washed away and soothed by the balm of apparently unlimited BT Sport money?
If the rasion d'etre behind this from the English side is screwing more money to compete with the French, surely the quicker and easier way for them to do it (rather than risking losing their position under a B & I league pecking order) would be to
1 -Get more TV money from BT for themselves alone (since according to you they are spending it like a sailor on the first day of shore leave)
2 - Get more money from the European Cup revenues diverted to them - they've done it once they can push it again.
3 -Change the salary cap rules - more spend allowed, more marquee players, taking home grown players out of the cap equation, etc.
4 - Ringfence the Aviva so they are freed from the relegation problem.

As I've said previously, I actually agree with you that a B & I league would be in the financial sense at least good for the PRO12 sides - assuming they were prepared to cast the Italians to the wolves, but fail to see any possible benefit for the English sides that would take part, other than this mythical pot of funding that you keep claiming BT are going to find to throw at it.

Mick Dawson (Leinster CEO) said that he had informal discussions with some Aviva Premiership Chairmen/Owners who he said would be interested in a league that would have the Top 3 Irish clubs in it. The reason why they wanted the Top 3 is because they have big fan bases who are willing to travel and there are a large number of expats living in the UK. They were not interested in Connacht which suggests they were thinking of an elite competition.

Now, I know you all think that tv money is the be all and end all of the financing of rugby. In truth ticket & jersey sales are more important to clubs.

An average of 12K at a game @30 a ticket x 12 games a season is worth about 4.5m per season. The throw in merchandising, food sales etc. and you would have a very nice steady income.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:the only possible circumstances under which this sort of league would be viable would be in the event of the richer PRL clubs breaking away from the rest and setting up their own competition,  

That is 100% not true though isn't it. It's absolute nonsense.

It would certainly be a reason, if not the only one. If a B&I is to happen then I believe it would come about following the collapse of the European Champions Cup. That isn't something I predict happening in the near future.
The concern for all those that would be involved in a B&I would be the effect a B&I would likely have on the Champions Cup. A B&I is bound to have a negative impact on the Champions Cup, and the revenue it generates.

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:the only possible circumstances under which this sort of league would be viable would be in the event of the richer PRL clubs breaking away from the rest and setting up their own competition,  

That is 100% not true though isn't it. It's absolute nonsense.

It would certainly be a reason, if not the only one. If a B&I is to happen then I believe it would come about following the collapse of the European Champions Cup. That isn't something I predict happening in the near future.
The concern for all those that would be involved in a B&I would be the effect a B&I would likely have on the Champions Cup. A B&I is bound to have a negative impact on the Champions Cup, and the revenue it generates.

Fair enough.

"I believe it would come about......"

is a very different statement to:

"the only possible circumstances under which this sort of league would be viable.........."

I see BT were not arsed to bid for the 6Ns!

Sin é wrote:I see BT were not arsed to bid for the 6Ns!

Perhaps theys een more value in the level of rugby beneath the international level that lasts for 9 months not 2.5 months.

Why not bid 100 Mil though as money is no issue. It would really help the clubs and investing in youth etc.

Sin é wrote:I see BT were not arsed to bid for the 6Ns!

Too many Celtic teams?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why not bid 100 Mil though as money is no issue. It would really help the clubs and investing in youth etc.

Probably because they want domestic rugby.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why not bid 100 Mil though as money is no issue. It would really help the clubs and investing in youth etc.

Probably because they want domestic rugby.

They don't want the jewell in the crown? Bizarre. Ignoring that though it would be really helpful so they should have outbid the competitors and given the rights away. For the good of the clubs eventually or course.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why not bid 100 Mil though as money is no issue. It would really help the clubs and investing in youth etc.

Probably because they want domestic rugby.

They don't want the jewell in the crown?

Obviously not at this stage.

Ignoring that though it would be really helpful so they should have outbid the competitors and given the rights away. For the good of the clubs eventually or course.

Childish.

Why? BT could be contributing more couldn't they? Money isn't an issue so it's strange they seem to be making decisions seemingly based on their business rather than what's best for the teams involved.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why not bid 100 Mil though as money is no issue. It would really help the clubs and investing in youth etc.

Probably because they want domestic rugby.

Surely if BT were swimming in the money that Chunky seems to think they have to throw at rugby, then capturing the jewel in the crown of international rugby competitions would be a massive coup for them, a blow against Sky and the terrestrial channels, etc.
Or has someone in the BT heirarchy realised that they massively overspent already to acquire the rights to a league that attracts very few viewers, isn't pulling in the big name advertisers and in terms of the money they've spent to create a European Cup (and the extra they've had to spend in sponsorship to placate the Welsh and Scots) is a very poor return as those pesky French keep winning it?
The fact is the BT have gone for a shot or bust deal by spending massively on the soccer Champions League and the Premier League and it wouldn't surprise me if the whole BT Sport franchises have a massive revamp/relaunch in a year or less to try and hold on to their viewer base.

Apparently BT offered to top up the BBC bid in exchange for some games, but BBC went with ITV in fending off the SKY bid:

"An announcement that the two terrestrial broadcasters would split the 15 Six Nations matches between them was said to be imminent, something that would be welcomed by armchair fans who have seen a succession of major sporting events lured to pay-TV in recent years.
The Six Nations was in serious danger of following suit after tournament organisers openly courted bids from the likes of Sky and BT to drive up the price. As it was, only Sky made an offer, which was said to have fallen short of the amount needed for the Six Nations board to seriously consider defecting from terrestrial television.
That followed record-breaking ratings for the most dramatic final day in the Championship’s history, which Paul O’Connell’s Ireland won after Chris Robshaw narrowly failed to inspire England to an historic triumph. BT were prepared to help prop up any BBC bid that fell short in exchange for some matches, with the two companies having forged close links when it comes to rights.
Turning to ITV would therefore represent something of a surprise move by the corporation."
6N's BID

As much as I would have preferred all of the 6N's UK coverage to remain with BBC, the BBC partnering with ITV is a far better option than BT having some of those games, or SKY winning the bid outright.

Lets not forget that 6n and Pro 12 chief John Feehan was all for the 6n going to pay per view tv.

I think the IRFU were pushing for it. It makes sense to have more bidders, but it wouldn't be good for the 6N's to go pay per view.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Lets not forget that 6n and Pro 12 chief John Feehan was all for the 6n going to pay per view tv.

No. He wasn't.

'The Championship has never been healthier, it is in great shape and our terrestrial broadcasters have been fantastic partners. But that being said, they, like anybody else, have to be kept honest.'

Feehan remarked that it would be remiss of the tournament organisers not to seek the greatest bang for its buck and noted that most unions, Ireland included, would not be able to survive without a cut of the revenue the Six Nations brings in.

Feehan added, 'The reality is that this [Six Nations] is an extremely important revenue stream and broadcasting is an extremely important element of that revenue'.

He was all for keeping the FTA people honest!

Munchkin wrote:I think the IRFU were pushing for it. It makes sense to have more bidders, but it wouldn't be good for the 6N's to go pay per view.

The IRFU were not pushing for it. They didn't want the 6Ns listed as FTA as their cut of the 6Ns would be reduced (due to excluding bidders).

Sky always want exclusive rights and they know they are not going to get that for something like the 6Ns.

Munchkin wrote:I think the IRFU were pushing for it. It makes sense to have more bidders, but it wouldn't be good for the 6N's to go pay per view.

The IRFU were not pushing for it. They didn't want the 6Ns listed as FTA as their cut of the 6Ns would be reduced (due to excluding bidders).

Sky always want exclusive rights and they know they are not going to get that for something like the 6Ns.

Philip Browne was against Alex White (Minister for Communications) suggestion to designate the games as having to be FTA. The IRFU were pushing for it in the sense that they wanted the bidding to remain open. If White had have got his way then, as you say, their slice may have been reduced. So I suppose they weren't so much for pay per view as they were against Whites wanting to designate the games as having to be FTA, however, Browne's comments do suggest that FTA may not be an option in the future:FTA 6N's?

"......He accepted that fans wanted to see more of Ireland’s success on a free-to-air basis, but said: “there won’t be any success if we can’t afford it. It’s a chicken-and-egg scenario.
“And the reality is: you strip out funding, the first thing we have to decide: do we put the money into the professional game or do we put it into grass-roots?
“Now the reality is: if we take it away from grass roots, well then that affects our future. If we take it away from the professional game, that affects our ability to generate revenues ... What we’re really saying to the Government is: be very, very careful what you do, that you don’t disturb the economy of what is a finely balanced sport.”

Browne said he doubted the Six Nations would be removed from free-to-air in the near future, but warned the Government to stop interfering.

“What we’re really saying is; don’t interfere in the marketplace. Let us be the judges of what is best for the sport.”

Sin é wrote:Browne said he doubted the Six Nations would be removed from free-to-air in the near future, but warned the Government to stop interfering.

“What we’re really saying is; don’t interfere in the marketplace. Let us be the judges of what is best for the sport.”

Yes, he didn't want the Government interfering by going ahead with their plans to designate the games FTA.

Yes, don't interfere in an open market by closing off revenue streams such as SKY.


And so reading the full context of the article tells us that although FTA has been great, thus far, things may change in the future and Ireland want to be well placed to meet those changes. Something that would be very difficult should the Irish Government designate those games FTA. Browne doesn't want Ireland to be left behind in any big deals with broadcasters such as SKY (other revenue streams), should that happen.

Nope. Purely there to keep the FTA guys honest.

Feehan has played a blinder.

Nope to what?

Nobody has played a blinder in this. Browne has done nothing more than express what needed to be done in the best interest of IRFU, and what needed to be done is stop the Governments designation of the games as FTA. There are two strong reasons for that:

- it would weaken IRFU's power when negotiating 6N's broadcasting deals.

- it would block pay per view broadcasters from submitting bids to broadcast Ireland games in the future.

I'm not saying anything Browne hasn't really said himself.

Munchkin wrote:Nope to what?

Nobody has played a blinder in this. Browne has done nothing more than express what needed to be done in the best interest of IRFU, and what needed to be done is stop the Governments designation of the games as FTA. There are two strong reasons for that:

- it would weaken IRFU's power when negotiating 6N's broadcasting deals.

- it would block pay per view broadcasters from submitting bids to broadcast Ireland games in the future.

I'm not saying anything Browne hasn't really said himself.

1) IRFU don't negotiate - the 6Ns Committee (John Feehan does).
2) Not necessarily. For example, Sky Sports, TG4 and BBC Sport Scotland broadcast the Pro12 final. RTE & Sky broadcast the All Ireland Finals.
3) This is what John Feehan had to say:

In February, there was a very real concern that the Six Nations could end up as pay to view. John Feehan, Six Nations chief executive, explained at the time his dismay at politicians who publicly supported a free-to-air (FTA) mandate in Ireland for the tournament.
Competition

“That’s a really negative thing for us because . . . the reality is you get really hurt badly by the [FTA] broadcasters if they know that there’s no real market or competition for them.

“We’re very, very happy with RTÉ; we’re very happy with our terrestrial broadcasts – but we need to have the [satellite] option . . . The reality is the Irish market puts in less than three million sterling and receives significantly more than ten million sterling back.
“Now, if the Irish scenario hurts the broadcasting deal that can be done in the UK because of problems with Sky or BT or whoever it may be, that could have a very serious impact on the actual revenues.”

About three per cent of the Six Nations revenue comes from the Irish market.

I also think Feehan might mention that the Irish Gov/People's generosity is worth about 10m to the Six Nations Committee as the benefit from zero taxation from the Sporting Tax Exemption.

Sin é wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Nope to what?

Nobody has played a blinder in this. Browne has done nothing more than express what needed to be done in the best interest of IRFU, and what needed to be done is stop the Governments designation of the games as FTA. There are two strong reasons for that:

- it would weaken IRFU's power when negotiating 6N's broadcasting deals.

- it would block pay per view broadcasters from submitting bids to broadcast Ireland games in the future.

I'm not saying anything Browne hasn't really said himself.

1) IRFU don't negotiate - the 6Ns Committee (John Feehan does).
2) Not necessarily. For example, Sky Sports, TG4 and BBC Sport Scotland broadcast the Pro12 final. RTE & Sky broadcast the All Ireland Finals.
3) This is what John Feehan had to say:

In February, there was a very real concern that the Six Nations could end up as pay to view. John Feehan, Six Nations chief executive, explained at the time his dismay at politicians who publicly supported a free-to-air (FTA) mandate in Ireland for the tournament.
Competition

“That’s a really negative thing for us because . . . the reality is you get really hurt badly by the [FTA] broadcasters if they know that there’s no real market or competition for them.

“We’re very, very happy with RTÉ; we’re very happy with our terrestrial broadcasts – but we need to have the [satellite] option . . . The reality is the Irish market puts in less than three million sterling and receives significantly more than ten million sterling back.
“Now, if the Irish scenario hurts the broadcasting deal that can be done in the UK because of problems with Sky or BT or whoever it may be, that could have a very serious impact on the actual revenues.”

About three per cent of the Six Nations revenue comes from the Irish market.

I also think Feehan might mention that the Irish Gov/People's generosity is worth about 10m to the Six Nations Committee as the benefit from zero taxation from the Sporting Tax Exemption.

(1) - Yes, I know who negotiates 6N broadcasting deals. I was really referring to their involvement in it, as distinct from other Unions. It was the IRFU that were throwing their weight into stopping the Government designating the games FTA, and it was the IRFU CEO's comments we were discussing. It isn't as if the IRFU didn't have any practical involvement. I seem to remember an online petition, driven by IRFU, petitioning against a FTA designation.

(2) - You're drifting away from what Browne has said about the FTA and pay per view in Ireland. Sure, Irish viewers could watch free on RTE, whilst others pay for the privilege via SKY/BT, but Browne doesn't want to miss out on that particular revenue stream.

(3) - Feehan's comments support all that I have been saying. Probably because I haven't said anything other than what Browne has said.

"I also think Feehan might mention that the Irish Gov/People's generosity is worth about 10m to the Six Nations Committee as the benefit from zero taxation from the Sporting Tax Exemption."

It's a fair point, but then how much does IRFU give back to the economy with games played in Ireland, Dublin especially? Not just 6N's/AI's games, but also games involving the Provinces?