Champions Cup goes from strength to stength.

First topic message reminder :

Great to see this competition throwing up some great games in only its 2nd season.

Just goes to show what the HC could have been.

Great stuff and long may it continue.

Then I'll be the second person in this thread to point out that advertising is a completely different thing to acquiring broadcasting rights.

But you know this, I really shouldn't be getting in the way of your fun.

Sin é wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Sin é wrote:

By not even making an effort to bid for broadcasting rights, they knew they were weakening the PRO12 countries bargaining power when it came to European rugby which was their real interest.

Or, you know, they just didn't want it?

Huge change in strategy then that in 12 months they went from zero interest to wanting to sponsor everything that moved in the Pro12 (bar the Italians)!

That was the fulfilment of an obligation more than proof of desire But you can't say that directly or it might be considered libellous....

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Then I'll be the second person in this thread to point out that advertising is a completely different thing to acquiring broadcasting rights.

But you know this, I really shouldn't be getting in the way of your fun.

It is when you're simply paying your fee for what you bought.

I just realised I am actually eating popcorn while reading this..

Sin é wrote:

So the SRU is a commerical organisation, not a sporting organisation!

I think Irish people in general have a different attitude to sport than in the UK (which is informed by the English Premiership and its multi million deals).

In Ireland, the biggest, most popular sports are amateur in that the players don't get paid, and all money generated is put back into the community (and they generate a lot of money). For instance, Dublin GAA has a better sponsorship deal than Leinster Rugby.

Sin lets not hold the GAA (as in the organisation itself) up to be any colossus of integrity themselves, as with the SRU they know when a commercial decision trumps a sporting one and vice versa.

I'm also not sure what you mean by Irish people having a different attitude to sport aswell?

SecretFly wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Sin é wrote:

By not even making an effort to bid for broadcasting rights, they knew they were weakening the PRO12 countries bargaining power when it came to European rugby which was their real interest.

Or, you know, they just didn't want it?

Correct.  Much too far away from civilised cafes and Michelin star eateries of London, that shower.   Wellington boot yokels, what ho?

Oh of course, me saying that BT might have had no interest in broadcasting the Pro12 must have been some kind of slight against it or the countries involved in it. Nothing to do with the fact that broadcasting a second league would involve doubling the amount of rugby shown every weekend, with only 2 channels at the time to do it, or any of the other multitude of legitimate reasons why they might not have wanted the rights.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Sin é wrote:

By not even making an effort to bid for broadcasting rights, they knew they were weakening the PRO12 countries bargaining power when it came to European rugby which was their real interest.

Or, you know, they just didn't want it?

Correct.  Much too far away from civilised cafes and Michelin star eateries of London, that shower.   Wellington boot yokels, what ho?

Oh of course, me saying that BT might have had no interest in broadcasting the Pro12 must have been some kind of slight against it or the countries involved in it. Nothing to do with the fact that broadcasting a second league would involve doubling the amount of rugby shown every weekend, with only 2 channels at the time to do it, or any of the other multitude of legitimate reasons why they might not have wanted the rights.

No you were right the first time. It's not that they wouldn't have been able to make such a purchase work on a practical level.... they simply 'didn't want it.'

geoff999rugby wrote:In April 2014 the European dispute was resolved.

In the following month BT and the SRU announced a  £20 naming rights deal for Murrayfield.
The following year a £3.6 million shirt sponsorship deal was announced

Between January 2014 and April 2014 the SRU did a complete U-turn on their position with respect to the outcome of the European situation

Draw your own conclusion.

The conclusion I draw is that the SRU who have less money than the IRFU could see that the English clubs would walk away rather than continue with the old competition. Knowing that commercially a competition without the English component is a dead duck commercially they came to their senses.

SecretFly wrote:

No you were right the first time.  It's not that they wouldn't have been able to make such a purchase work on a practical level.... they simply 'didn't want it.'

Yes, probably for reasons similar to the one I mentioned. Cost, scheduling, saturation, etc rather than the fact that you are all dirty yokels.

I suppose the view you take of BT's decision to not bid for the rights depends on how desperate you are to play the victim in some way.

SecretFly wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Sin é wrote:

By not even making an effort to bid for broadcasting rights, they knew they were weakening the PRO12 countries bargaining power when it came to European rugby which was their real interest.

Or, you know, they just didn't want it?

Correct.  Much too far away from civilised cafes and Michelin star eateries of London, that shower.   Wellington boot yokels, what ho?

Oh of course, me saying that BT might have had no interest in broadcasting the Pro12 must have been some kind of slight against it or the countries involved in it. Nothing to do with the fact that broadcasting a second league would involve doubling the amount of rugby shown every weekend, with only 2 channels at the time to do it, or any of the other multitude of legitimate reasons why they might not have wanted the rights.

No you were right the first time.  It's not that they wouldn't have been able to make such a purchase work on a practical level.... they simply 'didn't want it.'

BT are a commercial organisation. If they do not want to bid for the Pro12 that is up to them. They did bid for the AP so one can only assume that they think the English market is worth more commercially. Given the relative size and wealth of the two markets that makes sense.

Am I missing something? Is there some sort of moral imperative requiring broadcasters to bid for all sports rights?

Marshes wrote:I just realised I am actually eating popcorn while reading this..

Sin é wrote:

So the SRU is a commerical organisation, not a sporting organisation!

I think Irish people in general have a different attitude to sport than in the UK (which is informed by the English Premiership and its multi million deals).

In Ireland, the biggest, most popular sports are amateur in that the players don't get paid, and all money generated is put back into the community (and they generate a lot of money). For instance, Dublin GAA has a better sponsorship deal than Leinster Rugby.

Sin lets not hold the GAA (as in the organisation itself) up to be any colossus of integrity themselves, as with the SRU they know when a commercial decision trumps a sporting one and vice versa.

I'm also not sure what you mean by Irish people having a different attitude to sport aswell?

My point about the GAA is that the sport is the main focus, not the profit and loss account. And all the money is invested back into the sport/community. It is probably more professional than most professional organisations - i.e., they would buy and sell the RFU I'd say! And they do enjoy a draw when there has to be a replay. When rugby and soccer were being played in Croke Park (at about 1m per game, all the money went back into the community - Dublin County Board for instance employed a rake of Development Officers particularly for hurling which we are beginning to see that cash injection paying off with them.

Even with their Sky deal, their main interest is providing GAA coverage outside Ireland and the only way Sky will do that is by getting some exclusive rights.

With regard to salaries etc - a while back one of the newspapers did a feature on the 3 General Secs of main sporting organisation, Browne, Duffy & Delaney. Browne and Duffy (the two best run organisations) were earning about a quarter of what Delaney was on.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No you were right the first time.  It's not that they wouldn't have been able to make such a purchase work on a practical level.... they simply 'didn't want it.'

Yes, probably for reasons similar to the one I mentioned. Cost, scheduling, saturation, etc rather than the fact that you are all dirty yokels.

I suppose the view you take of BT's decision to not bid for the rights depends on how desperate you are to play the victim in some way.

I'm not playing any victim.  I don't believe myself to be a victim or indeed a wellington boot yokel (although I've just been in them for fifteen minutes to do some important dirty work outside).

I believe a lot of bum and back-scratching deals have been struck in the past few years designed to enhance the power of certain sects of rugby in Europe over others.  I believe a number of companies were in cahoots on the grand plan.... and I believe it's only an 'ideal' plan for 'growth of rugby' for the sect that had the grand plan in the first place.

That's not being a victim to say that.  That's simply not being an idiot and being able to add one and one.  Simple maths.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Am I missing something? Is there some sort of moral imperative requiring broadcasters to bid for all sports rights?

Yes, you're missing the point that I never once made it apparent that I was sore at BT for not bidding. I don't care who bids. I don't care who pays. All I care about is the rugby being played and the outlets provided to the teams I support to play the rugby being played.

If you want to direct points at people who are sore about BT not bidding, there are others here that seem to regret the Pro12 is now Sky rather than BT.

Exiledinborders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Sin é wrote:

By not even making an effort to bid for broadcasting rights, they knew they were weakening the PRO12 countries bargaining power when it came to European rugby which was their real interest.

Or, you know, they just didn't want it?

Correct.  Much too far away from civilised cafes and Michelin star eateries of London, that shower.   Wellington boot yokels, what ho?

Oh of course, me saying that BT might have had no interest in broadcasting the Pro12 must have been some kind of slight against it or the countries involved in it. Nothing to do with the fact that broadcasting a second league would involve doubling the amount of rugby shown every weekend, with only 2 channels at the time to do it, or any of the other multitude of legitimate reasons why they might not have wanted the rights.

No you were right the first time.  It's not that they wouldn't have been able to make such a purchase work on a practical level.... they simply 'didn't want it.'

BT are a commercial organisation. If they do not want to bid for the Pro12 that is up to them. They did bid for the AP so one can only assume that they think the English market is worth more commercially. Given the relative size and wealth of the two markets that makes sense.

Am I missing something? Is there some sort of moral imperative requiring broadcasters to bid for all sports rights?

Absolutely not. My initial comment about the deal was to put the record straight about what actually happened.

The Pro12 have come out of this whole thing very well. Guaranteed 20m every year by the Spivs for at least the next 5 years whether they turn up or not Money for jam for the Welsh!

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't think BT are that interested in sponsoring Irish sides because they would have to change their name to B&IT.

Have something against The letters B and T? BT owns British Telecommunications but they're bigger than that. They operate in 170 countries.

This wasn't directed at you Hammer - it's called humour.