The Future for the PRO12 - Part 3 - The Union Balldance

First topic message reminder :

I stepped out and she stepped in again
I stepped out and she stepped in again
learning to dance for Lanigan's Ball


In thinking about recent goings-on at union level within the PRO12, I was reminded of the lyrics of this old song as unions, corporate interests, private investors, Welsh benefactors, and sundry money-makers make their various moves on the PRO12 dance floor.  Scotland and Ireland seem to be bashfully eyeing up the investor lads on one side of the hall, fluttering their eyelashes, whilst on the other side, the Welsh bennys (as they're affectionately known ) are making tapes and throwing shapes, whilst secretly hoping eagerly that they might get a chance to sign the WRU's card for a dance or two.  Meanwhile, the Italians dither in the middle wondering where they should be but won't tell anyone that they don't know even the music.  

But for now the band has taken a break whilst the visiting Europeans and Anglo heavies make their way onto the floor to start their version of French/Anglo hopscotch involving a number of bulky partners, foreign tap dancers, celtic coaches, and comic millionaires.

It's a good a time as any for a quick cuppa and a chance to talk about where the PRO12 is going with all the plans for expansion to US and Europe suddenly gone quiet, some league quality improvements, big weekend derbies, more neutral officials, and what else is on the horizon for upcoming changes within the PRO12.

The looming spectre of dwindling money and funding ever more expensive teams for the future seems to be the next big issue and where that is all going to come from.   Hopes of improved TV deals, better sponsors and business supporters of the league remain a distant aspiration - although the recent appointment of a commercial director to work alongside Martin Anayi on securing the best deals possible seems to be a step in the right direction.  Some are holding their whisth on that one.

Ownership and financing of the teams themselves is the most urgent and vexing issue facing the four unions operating in the PRO12.  Over the last number of months, the SRU have been making a lot of noise and some news headlines with their plans to bring in private investment to its two Scottish clubs to help meet some of the ongoing costs involved.   The SRU says it can't continue to finance the two teams at current levels of revenue and costs, and they need to bring in private investors/business to meet a substantial portion of the costs in return for a stake in one or both of the two clubs.  How much that stake would be is not clear as the SRU would want to keep their hand in the two clubs responsible for generating its line of test players, but whether that would be a 51% stake or less remains to be seen.   A voting process in late 2016 saw members give the green light to the Scottish Union to pursue this path of identifying and securing potential investment but only time will tell if it will draw in any worthwhile investors.

Italian rugby seems to lurch from one crisis to the next with the FIR having to bail out both Treviso and Zebre in recent times with substantial commitments of money.  After the last crisis, which saw a number of players leave the two clubs, it is Treviso who have fared better with the backing of Bennetton, and it is Zebre who are staring down the barrel of closure at season end once again.  A new franchise, based in Rome, is being rumoured to be on the cards with the FIR willing to put financial support into its development.   For many within the PRO12, and without, the Italian project seems to be a wasted exercise and just amounts to weekly humiliation as opposition teams pile up the points, regularly taking home try bonus points in their victories. For others, the Italian involvement is a long game and one that has to be persevered with.    Yet, the FIR is still not a shareholder in Celtic Rugby, the company which manages the PRO12 - the latest filings with the Companies Registration Office in Dublin shows that the three Celtic unions remain the founding shareholders, and critically, the beneficiaries of any financial dealing that flow through it - particularly in relation to TV broadcasting deals such as Sky Sports.  This current season, it took until Round 6 before an Italian broadcaster could be secured for covering the home matches of Treviso and Zebre, and with crowds often hovering around 1,500-2,000, this didn't raise many eyebrows.  for the foreseeable future, Italian rugby will stay within the PRO12, and the FIR will continue to be a major stakeholder/financier in the teams.

Irish rugby has been dabbling with business support for a number of years now with the provincial teams drawing in sponsorships, player salary top-ups, and increasing financial support for the various provinces through different types of schemes devised by the individual branches.   Jamie Heaslip recently re-signed with Leinster on what's likely to be his final playing contract before retirement (at age 37).  One of Ireland’s most consistent and durable players, he’s also been one of the most consistently highest paid through his IRFU central contract, and a salary top-up through his Leinster club with a business sponsorship deal with Bank of Ireland.  

But these adhoc business supports and extended sponsorships/player promotions and brand ambassadors do not fill the coffers of the branches sufficiently to grow and expand, it's sufficient only to pay the salaries of 2-3 players to keep them in place against ever higher competing offers from the TV-deal-enriched clubs in England and France.  As the IRFU pointed at the launch of its annual report last June, the IRFU cannot continue to be "the bank of last resort" for the provinces - following a €1 million plus bailout of Munster, and a €250k additional budget for each province to help them compete on player salaries.   A number of the provinces have sought quietly to persuade the IRFU to consider opening up the provinces’ branch company structures to allow private investors to take a stake in each of the provinces in return for continued investment over a period of time.  Until the last year, those overtures have been largely rebuffed with the occasional odd positive murmur about the need to keep control if such a development were to be envisaged.   It is rumoured that alongside the SRU’s current moves, the IRFU is also investigating how the branches’ structures could be altered to allow such investment in the future.  A variant of the NZRU model whereby they allowed private investors to take a stake in each of the five Super Rugby franchises is being considered, but the IRFU would want to maintain a controlling stake that gives them oversight and control in line with the current player management policy and protocols they have in place.  

As the IRFU have stated time and again, the revenues from the test game is what keeps the whole of Irish rugby afloat - interfering with or disabling that in some way is not something they would countenance.  Equally, the union recognises that costs will continue to rise in the PRO12 and wider club game with player salaries being biggest driver.   Their investment policy has switched from paying out large salaries to high-profile capped foreign players to investing in the domestic pathway development (€10m over the last 3 years) - with the emergence of some fine academy players across the provinces proving testament to this approach led by David Nucifora on behalf of the IRFU.

Nonetheless, the club game is getting bigger and more financially competitive so if a methodology can be developed to allow private investment takes its place at the table, it’s likely to happen over the next few years.  

But as two unions move across the dance floor looking for wealthy partners, the Welsh benefactors are being drawn (protestingly for some) from the other side by the WRU who have recently announced that they see the future of the Welsh game involving a marriage of both union and private investment funds.  As two unions prepare to step out, the Welsh union is preparing to step in again.   The Dragons region has been languishing in the shop window for the past year, gathering dust as various investor-type people amble up, take a poke and move off again without buying.   Martin Phillps was pushed recently in an interview to say that the WRU couldn't allow the region to fold, but he wasn't too specific in public as to what kind of support they might bring.  Equally, he was encouraged enough to say that increased union funding for the four regions seemed to be inevitable - but he didn't say what price they might extract for such investment.  Would the benefactors/shareholders be asked to move on, or move around the table to make more room for union faces to sit down?  

Whilst there are those who pine for a future whereby pure private investment and ownership rules the roost like their counterparts in England and France, the likelihood of that model being created and surviving does not seem to be on anyone's dance cards.   More likely, a marriage of convenience may be arrived at, wherein true love may never be expressed, but at least the two parties will be able to pay the mortgage together, and maybe afford a new extension or two in the near future to mix a few metaphors.

But for now, let the European hopscotch begin, and then the merry four-nation dance can begin again.

All together now:

Sixteen long years we spent in Dub-i-lin
Sixteen long years doin' nothing at all
Sixteen long years we spent in Dub-i-lin
Learning to dance at the PRO12 ball.

They stepped out, and they stepped in again......

I do love Munster fans, one epically deluded in particular, moaning about the IRFU.

It's like a kid in a new car, that Daddy is paying for, moaning that it doesn't go fast enough.

Munchkin wrote:

profitius wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

It's an important question, and not limited to Welsh fans. All sides are trying to increase revenue and supporters may not be prepared to pay more for less. Why should they? I guess there could be some sort of cup created to fill the gaps, but would that not defeat the purpose of having less league games?

I'm not convinced having less games does mean more quality. Does it really mean our national players get more games at their Province/Region, or just that the PRO12 are cutting out games those players wouldn't be available for?

Less league games would certainly disadvantage sides that have less internationals playing for them. The AI's/6N's windows help level the field for some.

Something else; would a knock-on effect be a downsizing of squads? Also much less chance to develop young prospects, which would be to the detriment of the Provinces/Regions and the national sides. All of which would make us less competitive in Europe.

(1) The more games the pro12 cut out, the higher percentage of games the top players play in. For simplicity, if there were 16 games and the top players played in 8 of those, that would only be 50%. If those 16 games got reduce by 4, out of 12 games now the top players would still be playing in 8 games but since theres only 12 games now, 8 of 12 is 66%. So theres a 16% rise in games where the star players are playing.  


(2) Yes it would be an advantage to the strong sides but those sides would argue that they are being disadvantaged now with losing players in international windows. But there are advantages for smaller sides too like having less injuries, which I explain below.


(3) Yes I think it would lead to downsizing of squads but that could be a good thing. The money saved in downsizing the squad could be put towards the first team players or put into the academy.  


(4) I also think more weeks off during the season would be great for lowering the number of injuries. Look at Connacht this season. They can't get on top of their injury crisis. What happens then is they have to play players that are not fully fit and they're more likely to pick up injuries too. Its a vicious circle. Connacht are picking up around 2 injuries per game. So 4 fewer games means 8 less injuries not to mention 4 more weeks of injured players being able to recover which in turn helps prevent injuries.


(5) As already pointed out, changes will affect each team differently.

(1) I understand the maths, prof

What I'm saying is that you don't get more games with top players. You get the same amount. Less doesn't always equal more. Season ticket holders might be paying the same costs for games featuring top players (as they have previously), but for less games overall, and non season ticket holders will be paying more for individual games.

If your point is that it raises the standard of the league, I'm still not sure I can agree. It raises the standard of sides with more of the top players, but leaves weaker sides floundering, with the gap between top and bottom sides widening.


(2) The sides losing players to international windows have no grounds for complaint. They sign the players, and it's up to them to add strength in depth. The weaker sides would love to have that complaint.


(3) The Provinces have to stick to the NIQ, so choices are limited in how you invest any saved money. That money could be invested into the academies, but any potential academy prospects are going to find it much harder to break into a side full of internationals who play most/all games. There would be much less opportunity to develop our young players.

(4) That's only true for the top players if those players are really playing less games. It will be true for some, but not all. If squads are downsized, then there will be less options for rest and recovery of players.

(5) Change will effect all differently. So far, I don't really see an upside, other than extra rest for those players not playing in Test sides.

I have to think the overall effect is to leave all sides less competitive in Europe.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not dead against it. I'm really just trying to shape my thinking on it, and concentrating on the cons.

1. Those season ticket holders at the Scarlets for example will have a greater chance of seeing the top players than before. I remember Welsh fans saying BOD hardly ever played an away game in Wales. I go see your point though.

2. Its not as simple as that especially in the pro12. Leinster lose a lot of players to internationals. They don't sign players as internationals usually as they bring them through their academy with the exception of Henshaw. Same with Ospreys and Glasgow and Munster in the past.

This might actually be good for the 'smaller' sides. If the bigger sides like Leinster, Ospreys and Glasgow don't need as many players anymore their fringe players are more likely to go to the likes of Connacht, Dragons and Edinburgh.

3. They'll spend the money on keeping their best players. That'll be priority number 1. Wages are rising all the time due to the inflation caused by the AP and Top14. I don't think a fortune would be saved by reducing the squad. When I talk about downsizing the squad I'd guess it would be about 4 or 5 players.

4. Yes the top players are more likely to get injured at the same rate if they play the same amount of games but from a team point of view a big problem I see when squads are injury hit is the second choice players are overplayed and playing with knocks and niggles. Instead of recovering from a knock they're playing yet another match, get injured and then the third choice player is called up. Thats what has happened Connacht this season. Every week you hear about players facing late fitness tests. They are crippled by injuries and that puts pressure on the first teamers to be overplayed and they become more likely to get injured. Bundee Aki a prime example.

5. No doubt there are pros and cons with every move but I'm concentrating on the pros. I'm a realist though so I can see where you're coming from. Overall I think the idea is to improve the pro12 as a product. Improve its image. It has a bad rep in some places because of "resting players". Every team in every league does it but pro12 teams have to do it more because we've more internationals. So regarding point 1 again, the reason I think its a good idea is because it will eliminate 4 weekends of matches during the international window when nearly all the star players will be missing. They're the kind of matches that has been dragging the perception of the league down. Personally I don't mind those games but the average fan wants to see the big name celebrity players.

PhilBB wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:That is the one thing that Roger Lewis got right during his tenure. He set the going rate with BBC Wales for airing the Pro12. He got a good deal, and now, I think, the Pro12 conduct the deals with the regional broadcasters, he has got a price, and the BBC still negotiate to that price.

No, he didn't. There was a deal in place before he came along.

Not for the amount he gained.

Lewis didn't negotiate the last deal, did he?

That was Talfarn Davies and Gerald Davies, no?

Munchkin wrote:
I think the next PRO12 deal is more likely to be around the €17m mark. Complete guess, but it could be more.

That's an extra £290,000 per team.

That's what, 1 good player?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I think the next PRO12 deal is more likely to be around the €17m mark. Complete guess, but it could be more.

That's an extra £290,000 per team.

That's what, 1 good player?

€500K per team extra. That's £430K at today's exchange rate. A decent amount of money.

profitius wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I think the next PRO12 deal is more likely to be around the €17m mark. Complete guess, but it could be more.

That's an extra £290,000 per team.

That's what, 1 good player?

€500K per team extra. That's £430K at today's exchange rate. A decent amount of money.

How do you get €500k? The current deal is worth €12.85m by today's rate. Therefore an extra €4.15 split between 12 is €345k assuming they split it equally.

That's really not a great deal of money in relative terms.

If the domestic markets in Ireland and Scotland can't raise an additional £5m between them and if Sky can't be persuaded to stump up an additional £2m a year, we may as well shut down the league.

Who is the anticipated rival to Sky's bid?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who is the anticipated rival to Sky's bid?

Liberty Global who own Eurosport, TV3 (in Ireland), I think they have a share in ITV and own Virgin Media. EirSport who bought Setanta recently and who have some sort of a link up with BT Sport (as in Ireland it is now possible to get BT Sport with their broadband).

RugbyFan100 wrote:

profitius wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I think the next PRO12 deal is more likely to be around the €17m mark. Complete guess, but it could be more.

That's an extra £290,000 per team.

That's what, 1 good player?

€500K per team extra. That's £430K at today's exchange rate. A decent amount of money.

How do you get €500k? The current deal is worth €12.85m by today's rate. Therefore an extra €4.15 split between 12 is €345k assuming they split it equally.

That's really not a great deal of money in relative terms.

Because I thought the current deal was €11m.

It could be better but we can only guess at this point. The interesting thing is the league is only just beginning to think like a league. That's a good start. Then add in inflation and more interested broadcasters you can see why I am fairly optimistic about the next deal. The upturn in European performances have also come at the right time.


What is badly needed now is the Italians to get their act together.

profitius wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

profitius wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

It's an important question, and not limited to Welsh fans. All sides are trying to increase revenue and supporters may not be prepared to pay more for less. Why should they? I guess there could be some sort of cup created to fill the gaps, but would that not defeat the purpose of having less league games?

I'm not convinced having less games does mean more quality. Does it really mean our national players get more games at their Province/Region, or just that the PRO12 are cutting out games those players wouldn't be available for?

Less league games would certainly disadvantage sides that have less internationals playing for them. The AI's/6N's windows help level the field for some.

Something else; would a knock-on effect be a downsizing of squads? Also much less chance to develop young prospects, which would be to the detriment of the Provinces/Regions and the national sides. All of which would make us less competitive in Europe.

(1) The more games the pro12 cut out, the higher percentage of games the top players play in. For simplicity, if there were 16 games and the top players played in 8 of those, that would only be 50%. If those 16 games got reduce by 4, out of 12 games now the top players would still be playing in 8 games but since theres only 12 games now, 8 of 12 is 66%. So theres a 16% rise in games where the star players are playing.  


(2) Yes it would be an advantage to the strong sides but those sides would argue that they are being disadvantaged now with losing players in international windows. But there are advantages for smaller sides too like having less injuries, which I explain below.


(3) Yes I think it would lead to downsizing of squads but that could be a good thing. The money saved in downsizing the squad could be put towards the first team players or put into the academy.  


(4) I also think more weeks off during the season would be great for lowering the number of injuries. Look at Connacht this season. They can't get on top of their injury crisis. What happens then is they have to play players that are not fully fit and they're more likely to pick up injuries too. Its a vicious circle. Connacht are picking up around 2 injuries per game. So 4 fewer games means 8 less injuries not to mention 4 more weeks of injured players being able to recover which in turn helps prevent injuries.


(5) As already pointed out, changes will affect each team differently.

(1) I understand the maths, prof

What I'm saying is that you don't get more games with top players. You get the same amount. Less doesn't always equal more. Season ticket holders might be paying the same costs for games featuring top players (as they have previously), but for less games overall, and non season ticket holders will be paying more for individual games.

If your point is that it raises the standard of the league, I'm still not sure I can agree. It raises the standard of sides with more of the top players, but leaves weaker sides floundering, with the gap between top and bottom sides widening.


(2) The sides losing players to international windows have no grounds for complaint. They sign the players, and it's up to them to add strength in depth. The weaker sides would love to have that complaint.


(3) The Provinces have to stick to the NIQ, so choices are limited in how you invest any saved money. That money could be invested into the academies, but any potential academy prospects are going to find it much harder to break into a side full of internationals who play most/all games. There would be much less opportunity to develop our young players.

(4) That's only true for the top players if those players are really playing less games. It will be true for some, but not all. If squads are downsized, then there will be less options for rest and recovery of players.

(5) Change will effect all differently. So far, I don't really see an upside, other than extra rest for those players not playing in Test sides.

I have to think the overall effect is to leave all sides less competitive in Europe.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not dead against it. I'm really just trying to shape my thinking on it, and concentrating on the cons.

1. Those season ticket holders at the Scarlets for example will have a greater chance of seeing the top players than before. I remember Welsh fans saying BOD hardly ever played an away game in Wales. I go see your point though.

2. Its not as simple as that especially in the pro12. Leinster lose a lot of players to internationals. They don't sign players as internationals usually as they bring them through their academy with the exception of Henshaw. Same with Ospreys and Glasgow and Munster in the past.

This might actually be good for the 'smaller' sides. If the bigger sides like Leinster, Ospreys and Glasgow don't need as many players anymore their fringe players are more likely to go to the likes of Connacht, Dragons and Edinburgh.

3. They'll spend the money on keeping their best players. That'll be priority number 1. Wages are rising all the time due to the inflation caused by the AP and Top14. I don't think a fortune would be saved by reducing the squad. When I talk about downsizing the squad I'd guess it would be about 4 or 5 players.

4. Yes the top players are more likely to get injured at the same rate if they play the same amount of games but from a team point of view a big problem I see when squads are injury hit is the second choice players are overplayed and playing with knocks and niggles. Instead of recovering from a knock they're playing yet another match, get injured and then the third choice player is called up. Thats what has happened Connacht this season. Every week you hear about players facing late fitness tests. They are crippled by injuries and that puts pressure on the first teamers to be overplayed and they become more likely to get injured. Bundee Aki a prime example.

5. No doubt there are pros and cons with every move but I'm concentrating on the pros.  I'm a realist though so I can see where you're coming from. Overall I think the idea is to improve the pro12 as a product. Improve its image. It has a bad rep in some places because of "resting players". Every team in every league does it but pro12 teams have to do it more because we've more internationals. So regarding point 1 again, the reason I think its a good idea is because it will eliminate 4 weekends of matches during the international window when nearly all the star players will be missing. They're the kind of matches that has been dragging the perception of the league down. Personally I don't mind those games but the average fan wants to see the big name celebrity players.

(1) I'm not sure that's true. It might be, but I would like to see the detail if PRO12 decide to change the structure. It seems to me that fans will still get to see the top players playing the same amount of games. All that changes is that those games those players wouldn't now play, are going to be cut.

(2) I think it is that simple. It's up to each side to deal with how the league is structured. I'm certainly not going to feel sorry for any side packed with internationals. They benefit massively by having those internationals, and it's up to them to expand their squads accordingly. If this change in structure does happen, it will be a huge benefit to the 'have's', and a huge disadvantage to the 'have not's'.

(3) I agree, but downsizing by 4/5 players will still have a huge impact on the academy.

(4) Agree with all that, and things won't get any better with squads reducing numbers.

(5) I think the most effective way to improve the image is to improve the marketing/PR. I do get what you're saying about the Test windows, but I honestly look forward to seeing academy players take their chance during those windows. I accept that not all share that view, but those windows do provide the best opportunity to blood new players, and develop strength in depth.

My biggest concerns remain:

Will any change mean a downsizing of squads?

If squads are downsized, will that limit the effectiveness of the academies?

If squads are downsized, will that make us less competitive in Europe and, ultimately, the national sides?

Will having fewer games hit revenues - revenue in ticket sales, hospitality and advertising? There's also a loss to local trade, but maybe that's not a concern for PRO12 sides.

Will season ticket holders be prepared to pay the same costs for fewer games, and will non-season ticket holders be prepared to pay more for individual games, if that happens?

We won't know the answer to those questions until PRO12 publish their proposals, if they are considering changing the structure. No doubt PRO12 have looked at all the negatives, and will plan to negate them, but until then I will remain slightly sceptical.

I good discussion, and one that helps balance my negative with the positive

Sin é wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who is the anticipated rival to Sky's bid?

Liberty Global who own Eurosport, TV3 (in Ireland), I think they have a share in ITV and own Virgin Media. EirSport who bought Setanta recently and who have some sort of a link up with BT Sport (as in Ireland it is now possible to get BT Sport with their broadband).

It would make sense for Eurosport to get involved. Theyve just started to enter the rugby market.

profitius wrote:

Sin é wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who is the anticipated rival to Sky's bid?

Liberty Global who own Eurosport, TV3 (in Ireland), I think they have a share in ITV and own Virgin Media. EirSport who bought Setanta recently and who have some sort of a link up with BT Sport (as in Ireland it is now possible to get BT Sport with their broadband).

It would make sense for Eurosport to get involved. Theyve just started to enter the rugby market.

"Get involved"?

http://www.pro12rugby.com/2016/11/16/eurosport-becomes-italian-broadcaster-guinness-pro12/

profitius wrote:

What is badly needed now is the Italians to get their act together.

Surely what is badly needed is for the domestic TV deals in Ireland and Scotland to be worth more than €1.2m, which is about a quarter of the domestic Welsh TV deal.

If the Irish and Scottish TV companies had the same level of investment then that would be possible but they don't.

Far more money is pumped into BBC Wales and S4C than in their Scottish and Irish equivalent.

Also Wales supports 4 team, whereas Northern Ireland is 2/3 of one team so you cant expect the same amount of money.
Ireland, as a nation, is a different matter.

geoff999rugby wrote:If the Irish and Scottish TV companies had the same level of investment then that would be possible but they don't.

Far more money is pumped into BBC Wales and S4C than in their Scottish and Irish equivalent.

Really?

How much money is given annually to BBC Alba and BBC northern Ireland compared to the Welsh equivalents?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:If the Irish and Scottish TV companies had the same level of investment then that would be possible but they don't.

Far more money is pumped into BBC Wales and S4C than in their Scottish and Irish equivalent.

Really?

How much money is given annually to BBC Alba and BBC northern Ireland compared to the Welsh equivalents?

Any chance of sharing the figures you've seen ?

There are a lot of smoke and mirrors

So in truth very hard to find exact figures but the Welsh budget appears to be about 3 times higher than the other 2 areas

geoff999rugby wrote:There are a lot of smoke and mirrors

So in truth very hard to find exact figures but the Welsh budget appears to be about 3 times higher than the other 2 areas

Can you provide rough figures then ?

munkian wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:If the Irish and Scottish TV companies had the same level of investment then that would be possible but they don't.

Far more money is pumped into BBC Wales and S4C than in their Scottish and Irish equivalent.

Really?

How much money is given annually to BBC Alba and BBC northern Ireland compared to the Welsh equivalents?

Any chance of sharing the figures you've seen ?

I think you must have responded to the wrong person. I haven't seen any BBC investment figures, and as such haven't claimed one broadcaster is funded more than the next. Unlike the poster I've quoted.

geoff999rugby wrote:There are a lot of smoke and mirrors

So in truth very hard to find exact figures but the Welsh budget appears to be about 3 times higher than the other 2 areas

What do you mean "Welsh budget"?

The Welsh tv money is way higher than the rest because they decide to spend more money than the rest don't they? If you've seen some annual report that shows that BBC Wales has millions more to spend that BBC NI or Alba, I'd be excited to see it.

I can't imagine the renewed deal will allow for the pittance that Scottish and Irish tv currently provides.

Do we have official confirmation for any of the broadcasting deals?

Going on what we read in the papers; BBCNI would need to contribute roughly £750k to match the Regions broadcasting deals. BBCNI were involved in a bidding process against other competitors, driving the deal up, but I don't have a clue how much that deal is worth.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/19/bbc-spending-more-per-head-in-scotland-ni-and-wales-than-england

Might be an awkward read.

Munchkin wrote:Do we have official confirmation for any of the broadcasting deals?

Going on what we read in the papers; BBCNI would need to contribute roughly £750k to match the Regions broadcasting deals. BBCNI were involved in a bidding process against other competitors, driving the deal up, but I don't have a clue how much that deal is worth.

There we go. Say each IRFU team contributed 1/4 each of what BBC Wales pay. That'll do.

Munchkin wrote: BBCNI would need to contribute roughly £750k to match the Regions broadcasting deals. .

I'm not sure why you are equating a BBCNI deal with 4 teams in the tournament. The financial details of the deals and how they are negotiated have nothing to do with teams do they?

I have read that of the £11m - SkyTV put in £5m, BBC Wales put in just over £3m and the other approximately £3m I guess is Scottish, Irish and Italian. Which is obviously not enough.

How that money is split between the 12 teams is something somebody else will have to clear up. One things for sure - £11m is not really enough.

munkian wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:There are a lot of smoke and mirrors

So in truth very hard to find exact figures but the Welsh budget appears to be about 3 times higher than the other 2 areas

Can you provide rough figures then ?

BBC Annual Report wrote:The BBC’s expenditure in Wales during 2015/16 was £177.7 million across all services and platforms

S4C gets £75m in stand alone funding from the license plus further content costs on top of that, last year it was over £30m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37300406

BBC Alba spent £5.5m on content

BBC Alba currently gets 3p of the £12.13 monthly licence fee, yet its Welsh Language equivalent gets 10 times that sum.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/11/bbc-alba-not-allowed-to-wither-lack-of-funds

BBC Annual Report wrote:The BBC’s total expenditure in Northern Ireland during 2015/16 was £73.4 million across all services and platforms

BBC Wales payment is £4m, isn't it?

Alba is £150k
TG4 is €900,000

PhilBB wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/19/bbc-spending-more-per-head-in-scotland-ni-and-wales-than-england

Might be an awkward read.

Contradicts what I have seen but as I say all smoke and mirrors.

In it slightly amazing you cannot easily find a list of money the BBC give to S4C, BBCWales, BBC Alba and BBC NI.
You would have thought this information would be easily available

Hopefully it is and I have just missed it

Do S4C and BBCWales bid against each other ?
If so might explain some of the discrepancy - Alba and BBCNI have no one to compete with.

As a side what is the figure for NI - in terms of number of teams NI only has to be 1/6th of the Welsh budget to cover the equivalent number of teams.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/BBC-FS-2016.pdf

The Annual Report, if you're particularly interested

geoff999rugby wrote:
Do S4C and BBCWales bid against each other ?

No

RugbyFan100 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:There are a lot of smoke and mirrors

So in truth very hard to find exact figures but the Welsh budget appears to be about 3 times higher than the other 2 areas

What do you mean "Welsh budget"?

.

I meant the money each regions BBC sections get as a total budget not the amount they respectively spend on Rugby i.e. trying to identify their respective capacity to put money into the game

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote: BBCNI would need to contribute roughly £750k to match the Regions broadcasting deals. .

I'm not sure why you are equating a BBCNI deal with 4 teams in the tournament. The financial details of the deals and how they are negotiated have nothing to do with teams do they?

I have read that of the £11m -  SkyTV put in £5m, BBC Wales put in just over £3m and the other approximately £3m I guess is Scottish, Irish and Italian. Which is obviously not enough.

How that money is split between the 12 teams is something somebody else will have to clear up. One things for sure - £11m is not really enough.

Because this is what you asked:

"How much money is given annually to BBC Alba and BBC northern Ireland compared to the Welsh equivalents?"

Did you forget?

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote: BBCNI would need to contribute roughly £750k to match the Regions broadcasting deals. .

I'm not sure why you are equating a BBCNI deal with 4 teams in the tournament. The financial details of the deals and how they are negotiated have nothing to do with teams do they?

I have read that of the £11m -  SkyTV put in £5m, BBC Wales put in just over £3m and the other approximately £3m I guess is Scottish, Irish and Italian. Which is obviously not enough.

How that money is split between the 12 teams is something somebody else will have to clear up. One things for sure - £11m is not really enough.

Because this os what you asked:

"How much money is given annually to BBC Alba and BBC northern Ireland compared to the Welsh equivalents?"

Did you forget?

It all depends on whether you mean "regions" as in the Welsh rugby teams, or "regions" as in the BBC Regional broadcasters.

PhilBB wrote:http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/BBC-FS-2016.pdf

The Annual Report, if you're particularly interested

Frustratingly whilst the figures are given for Alba they are not for the Welsh channels and NI.
No doubt they are in there someone but not readily accessible

geoff999rugby wrote:

PhilBB wrote:http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/BBC-FS-2016.pdf

The Annual Report, if you're particularly interested

Frustratingly whilst the figures are given for Alba they are not for the Welsh channels and NI.
No doubt they are in there someone but not readily accessible

They are Ive posted them above

No matter who gets what money from where more needs to be put in by other unions is the bottomline surely ?

PhilBB wrote:http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/BBC-FS-2016.pdf

The Annual Report, if you're particularly interested

I think the article might be a bit misleading:

"The BBC has revealed that it is spending far more per head on people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than in England.

The corporation is spending the most per person in Wales, £83.60, followed by Northern Ireland, at £83.40 per person and then Scotland at £72.20. The figure for England is £52.10."

England have a population of more than 53 million.

Wales have a population of over 3 million.

Northern Ireland have a population of just over 1.8 million.

So, what figures are the 'per head' count? Obviously not the same as the total population figures, but still relative to the total population count. This would mean that England would get a huge slice of the pie, with Wales receiving much more than Northern Ireland.

The above isn't a complaint. Smaller population getting less makes sense but it's how that impacts the different sports broadcasting budgets that's in question.

marty2086 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

PhilBB wrote:http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/BBC-FS-2016.pdf

The Annual Report, if you're particularly interested

Frustratingly whilst the figures are given for Alba they are not for the Welsh channels and NI.
No doubt they are in there someone but not readily accessible

They are Ive posted them above

Your figures include spend on Network service.

In other words, your figure for Wales includes what it costs to make Dr Who.

You ain't comparing apples with apples.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote: BBCNI would need to contribute roughly £750k to match the Regions broadcasting deals. .

I'm not sure why you are equating a BBCNI deal with 4 teams in the tournament. The financial details of the deals and how they are negotiated have nothing to do with teams do they?

I have read that of the £11m -  SkyTV put in £5m, BBC Wales put in just over £3m and the other approximately £3m I guess is Scottish, Irish and Italian. Which is obviously not enough.

How that money is split between the 12 teams is something somebody else will have to clear up. One things for sure - £11m is not really enough.

Because this os what you asked:

"How much money is given annually to BBC Alba and BBC northern Ireland compared to the Welsh equivalents?"

Did you forget?

It all depends on whether you mean "regions" as in the Welsh rugby teams, or "regions" as in the BBC Regional broadcasters.

Ah, fair enough.

munkian wrote:No matter who gets what money from where more needs to be put in by other unions is the bottomline surely ?

The unions aren't putting any money in

BBC Local spend in Wales is £69.4m

BBC Local Spend on Alba is £98.1m

S4C Spend is £28m

BBC NI Spend is £53.3m

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:No matter who gets what money from where more needs to be put in by other unions is the bottomline surely ?

The unions aren't putting any money in

*sigh* The respective Union's countries then.

By my reckoning, the Scots are underpaying by about £4m a year and BBC NI needs to spend about £1.8m a year to be in line.

PhilBB wrote:By my reckoning, the Scots are underpaying by about £4m a year and BBC NI needs to spend about £1.8m a year to be in line.

Im guessing thats pale in comparison to how much extra the Irish TV companies should be chipping in ?

munkian wrote:

PhilBB wrote:By my reckoning, the Scots are underpaying by about £4m a year and BBC NI needs to spend about £1.8m a year to be in line.

Im guessing thats pale in comparison to how much extra  the Irish TV companies should be chipping in ?

£4m from Scotland, £1.8m from Northern Ireland and about €4m from the Republic of Ireland. 

There's £9m to just stand still.

PhilBB wrote:

munkian wrote:

PhilBB wrote:By my reckoning, the Scots are underpaying by about £4m a year and BBC NI needs to spend about £1.8m a year to be in line.

Im guessing thats pale in comparison to how much extra  the Irish TV companies should be chipping in ?

£4m from Scotland, £1.8m from Northern Ireland and about €4m from the Republic of Ireland. 

There's £9m to just stand still.

I'm sure the Welsh Regions will come up with some way to sabotage the next tv negotiations