Wales and Scotland are big meanies - Discuss

First topic message reminder :

Oct 31, Tuesday morning, World Rugby plans to announce who is the recommended host country for RWC 2023. The recommendation is contained in a 220 page analysis report conducted by an independent firm of assessors who have pored through every detail of the three bids. Apparently they've looked at everything from travel times, to accommodation, stadia facilities, and how long the queues would be for the loo.

Bookies had Ireland as favourites but their odds have lengthened slightly. Bill Beaumont and Agustin Pichot were given the report last Friday. The full document will be released to media today Oct 31, to maintain transparency and integrity of the bid process.

All the WR unions, except the three bidders, will vote on who should get it on November 15. It's a secret ballot, but the likelihood of a vote going against the recommendation would cause more than a few raised eyebrows. It could still happen though.

There could be a lot of glum faces by midday in either Dublin, or Paris or Cape Town.

*******************************
Nov 15, Wednesday, World Rugby plans to announce who the World Rugby Council of Unions have voted in favour to be host country for RWC 2023.  The various unions can relay on a 220 page analysis report conducted by an independent firm of assessors who pored through every detail of the three bids. And they said that any of the three bidders could host the RWC but based on their scoring, their recommendation was South Africa.

Irelamd didn’t get the RWC.

Snot fair.

geoff999rugby wrote:Lets assume that Welsh TV hands £350,000 a year to the other teams in the league
Lets also assume the Irish teams average a gate of 5000 more than the Welsh teams (it is more than that)
So at £20 a head we are talking 5000 x 20 x 10 = 1 million a year.

So gate money is far more important to Irish teams than Welsh TV money.
This does not even take into account that the figure of £350,000 is offset, to some extent, by the Irish TV money - say £100,000 for every team in the Pro14.
Lastly would Sky, or Guinness, even be interested in the Pro14 without the Irish - don't think so

Genuine question here, in amongst all of the banter, accusations and mud flinging: is the Irish rugby TV market really that much bigger than in Wales or Scotland? We keep hearing how it's 5th sport in Ireland. The games are well attended, but is the TV market for Sky and BT really that much bigger? I honestly don't know.

I think there were good political reasons for Wales and Scotland to get behind the Irish bid. They share the same league and are similarly sized countries and Unions competing with much larger and wealthier ones like England and France. It would make sense to maintain good relations and co-operation on many levels. Especially if one of those Unions ever want to host a World Cup individually, a united front I would guess would be close enough to essential to make that happen in the future.

On the other hand, money talks, and more often than not loudest of all. It’s a valid reason for supporting an alternative bid. I don’t think its great for the game that France is selected again so soon after hosting it and that it would appear that only the largest countries offering the most money will win. Even though France is the least risky, commercially superior and strongest bid on paper. I think the vote shows it going to be extremely difficult for a smaller country to get the required backing to host a world cup.

Griff wrote:


Guinness, owned by Diageo, headquartered in London?  Yes, thank you England for your sponsorship.

Diageo - stock market company - Thank you, the World

Diageo, - offices only on Earth. Thank you Solar System.

Diageo - no presence outside the Solar System. F**k off, Universe!

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Lets assume that Welsh TV hands £350,000 a year to the other teams in the league
Lets also assume the Irish teams average a gate of 5000 more than the Welsh teams (it is more than that)
So at £20 a head we are talking 5000 x 20 x 10 = 1 million a year.

So gate money is far more important to Irish teams than Welsh TV money.
This does not even take into account that the figure of £350,000 is offset, to some extent, by the Irish TV money - say £100,000 for every team in the Pro14.
Lastly would Sky, or Guinness, even be interested in the Pro14 without the Irish - don't think so

Genuine question here, in amongst all of the banter, accusations and mud flinging: is the Irish rugby TV market really that much bigger than in Wales or Scotland?  We keep hearing how it's 5th sport in Ireland.  The games are well attended, but is the TV market for Sky and BT really that much bigger?  I honestly don't know.

Well I'd throw that question back your way, Griff, as it seems the taunts of under-spending (as banter ) only come our way. So genuinely, you seriously think that when all the banknotes are counted at the end of the year, that the Welsh by far and away fund the bulk of any profits that accumulates in the bank accounts of Pro14?

I don't think the Irish haver ever pretended to pay for everything, but the continuous slur is that we pay for nothing.... except for those wandering cheating refs......

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:


Guinness, owned by Diageo, headquartered in London?  Yes, thank you England for your sponsorship.

Diageo - stock market company - Thank you, the World

Diageo, - offices only on Earth.  Thank you Solar System.

Diageo - no presence outside the Solar System.  F**k off, Universe!

Nice! I just wondered what the reference to Guinness was all about, as he seemed to be claiming it as an Irish 'gift' to the Pro14.

catchweight wrote:I think there were good political reasons for Wales and Scotland to get behind the Irish bid. They share the same league and are similarly sized countries and Unions competing with much larger and wealthier ones like England and France. It would make sense to maintain good relations and co-operation on many levels. Especially if one of those Unions ever want to host a World Cup individually, a united front I would guess would be close enough to essential to make that happen in the future.

But there's not a chance on earth that Wales would ever host a World Cup individually (or Scotland), so why would they even enter voting with that mindset? That is what has cost Ireland the chance. People are looking at this ass backwards. Their bid was naive. They may have been able to host it, but the chances of being the best bid was slim as they were a single nation bid.

On the other hand, money talks, and more often than not loudest of all. It’s a valid reason for supporting an alternative bid. I don’t think its great for the game that France is selected again so soon after hosting it and that it would appear that only the largest countries offering the most money will win. Even though France is the least risky, commercially superior and strongest bid on paper. I think the vote shows it going to be extremely difficult for a smaller country to get the required backing to host a world cup.

Yes, that's the reality. Joint bids are more likely to win for smaller countries. That the IRFU couldn't see this is not Scotland or Wales' fault.

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:


Guinness, owned by Diageo, headquartered in London?  Yes, thank you England for your sponsorship.

Diageo - stock market company - Thank you, the World

Diageo, - offices only on Earth.  Thank you Solar System.

Diageo - no presence outside the Solar System.  F**k off, Universe!

Nice!  I just wondered what the reference to Guinness was all about, as he seemed to be claiming it as an Irish 'gift' to the Pro14.

I never do.  I think Guinness sold out to big biz as is inevitable.  Even Aer Lingus is still marketed as an 'Irish' airline.... well, no, I don't regard it as such.  It's a foreign airline that bought the rights to an Irish logo.

Bloody Ryanair, with the kick-start planes is the only one I now recognise as Irish.

SecretFly wrote:

Well I'd throw that question back your way, Griff, as it seems the taunts of under-spending (as banter ) only come our way.  So genuinely, you seriously think that when all the banknotes are counted at the end of the year, that the Welsh by far and away fund the bulk of any profits that accumulates in the bank accounts of Pro14?

I don't think the Irish haver ever pretended to pay for everything, but the continuous slur is that we pay for nothing.... except for those wandering cheating refs......  

The whole point of this was to question a poster's ludicrous statement that the welsh tv money wouldn't be enough to pay for CJ Stander's bootlaces.

That crass, misinformed and wholly inaccurate comment just goes to show how some Irish fan's heads are in the shed. Sky pay £5m. BBC Wales and S4C pay c£4m (It used to be £3.2m but that has since gone up via a new S4C deal) and Rep of Ire broadcasters pay c£900k. I think it was mentioned that BBCNI pay close to £1m to £1.5m too.

So yes, the Welsh tv money is huge in comparison to what it should be. But this is just another in the long line of facts that are ignored / argued by your average deluded Irish rugby fan.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Well I'd throw that question back your way, Griff, as it seems the taunts of under-spending (as banter ) only come our way.  So genuinely, you seriously think that when all the banknotes are counted at the end of the year, that the Welsh by far and away fund the bulk of any profits that accumulates in the bank accounts of Pro14?

I don't think the Irish haver ever pretended to pay for everything, but the continuous slur is that we pay for nothing.... except for those wandering cheating refs......  

The whole point of this was to question a poster's ludicrous statement that the welsh tv money wouldn't be enough to pay for CJ Stander's bootlaces.

That crass, misinformed and wholly inaccurate comment just goes to show how some Irish fan's heads are in the shed. Sky pay £5m. BBC Wales and S4C pay c£4m (It used to be £3.2m but that has since gone up via a new S4C deal) and Rep of Ire broadcasters pay c£900k. I think it was mentioned that BBCNI pay close to £1m to £1.5m too.

So yes, the Welsh tv money is huge in comparison to what it should be. But this is just another in the long line of facts that are ignored / argued by your average deluded Irish rugby fan.

Well, do you know how much CJ Stander's bootlaces cost?

RugbyFan100 wrote: Joint bids are more likely to win for smaller countries. That the IRFU couldn't see this is not Scotland or Wales' fault.

You could be on to something there.

China, USA and Ireland in a bid. Or maybe Russia, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland trying it sometime. Or Maybe France and Cardiff could try it in ten year's time. The rest of Wales would have to lose out of course coz they won't have the Millennnium Falcon infrastructure...

RugbyFan100 wrote:

catchweight wrote:I think there were good political reasons for Wales and Scotland to get behind the Irish bid. They share the same league and are similarly sized countries and Unions competing with much larger and wealthier ones like England and France. It would make sense to maintain good relations and co-operation on many levels. Especially if one of those Unions ever want to host a World Cup individually, a united front I would guess would be close enough to essential to make that happen in the future.

But there's not a chance on earth that Wales would ever host a World Cup individually (or Scotland), so why would they even enter voting with that mindset? That is what has cost Ireland the chance. People are looking at this ass backwards. Their bid was naive. They may have been able to host it, but the chances of being the best bid was slim as they were a single nation bid.

On the other hand, money talks, and more often than not loudest of all. It’s a valid reason for supporting an alternative bid. I don’t think its great for the game that France is selected again so soon after hosting it and that it would appear that only the largest countries offering the most money will win. Even though France is the least risky, commercially superior and strongest bid on paper. I think the vote shows it going to be extremely difficult for a smaller country to get the required backing to host a world cup.

Yes, that's the reality. Joint bids are more likely to win for smaller countries. That the IRFU couldn't see this is not Scotland or Wales' fault.

Not necessarily. An inferior bid can win with enough support. A united from the homes nation gets them pretty close. Whats clear now is that a united front from the home nations is something that doesn't exist and probably wont in the future.

The Irish bid was heavily fancied prior to the World Rugby review (they were favourites) so it wasnt a pipe dream until the last month of the voting. Who knows what was discussed between the Unions beforehand. Im sure the IRFU would not have bothered bidding without any hint of support from the other home Unions.

Maybe more frankness from the Unions involved and World Rugby would be beneficial. For example if Scotland intended on following the strongest commercial bid it might have declared that privately at least early. Im not sure why World Rugby would invite Ireland to bid again if it’s a pointless exercise.

I get the impression that France really put the commercial front into overdrive in the aftermath of the report recommending South Africa and that that swayed many Unions at the final run up.

Apparently scotland were quite clear they'd always vote for the bid generating the most money.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Apparently scotland were quite clear they'd always vote for the bid generating the most money.

How dare they not vote for something more tangible like 'the craic'

No 7&1/2 wrote:Apparently scotland were quite clear they'd always vote for the bid generating the most money.

They should have joined Top14 instead of hanging around Pro14 then. I think the 14 in the title must be confusing them.

Hey Glasgow! You know Boudjellal don't own you, don't you??? Please tell me you know the bank cheque ain't blank.

The amussing part of this is seeing all the Welsh posters suddenly being in favour of backing the big commercial bid after spending so much time complaining about how the money in France and England was ruining the game and totally unfair.
Offer them a few quid and a bag of crisps and suddenly commercialism is the best thing since regionalisation.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Apparently scotland were quite clear they'd always vote for the bid generating the most money.

So were Wales. They said they'd vote with the recommendation. Because their Chairman was part of that recommendation.

If IRFU thought Wales were going to vote for someone other than the bid that Wales' chairman had (helped) put forward, then they are stupider than I thought.

Gooseberry wrote:The amussing part of this is seeing all the Welsh posters suddenly being in favour of backing the big commercial bid after spending so much time complaining about how the money in France and England was ruining the game and totally unfair.
Offer them a few quid and a bag of crisps and suddenly commercialism is the best thing since regionalisation.

Eh? Wales didn't back the big commercial bid. They backed a bid that would bring in the same revenue as the Irish bid.

And by the way, anybody complaining about how domestic rugby is run in england and france is a fool. It's the perfect model.

Are you formally Phil?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Are you formally Phil?

Me? No I'm not somebody called Phil.

Similar style.

This Phil chap sounds like a good egg.

Might have missed this, what is the point re Wales chairman?

Just the writing style is similar rugby fan. Phils views were bizarre and silly sometimes.

LGooseberry wrote:The amussing part of this is seeing all the Welsh posters suddenly being in favour of backing the big commercial bid after spending so much time complaining about how the money in France and England was ruining the game and totally unfair.
Offer them a few quid and a bag of crisps and suddenly commercialism is the best thing since regionalisation.

I haven't seen any Welsh poster saying we'd back the big commercial bid. I've only seen Welsh posters reacting to being blamed for Ireland losing the bid. If they're going to single us out for blame then they're going to get a reaction.

Griff wrote:

LGooseberry wrote:The amussing part of this is seeing all the Welsh posters suddenly being in favour of backing the big commercial bid after spending so much time complaining about how the money in France and England was ruining the game and totally unfair.
Offer them a few quid and a bag of crisps and suddenly commercialism is the best thing since regionalisation.

I haven't seen any Welsh poster saying we'd back the big commercial bid. I've only seen Welsh posters reacting to being blamed for Ireland losing the bid. If they're going to single us out for blame then they're going to get a reaction.

I don't think anyone is of the opinion that the Welsh posters on this forum lost Ireland the bid.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just the writing style is similar rugby fan.  Phils views were bizarre and silly sometimes.

Which particular bits on this thread are bizarre and silly from me?

BamBam wrote:Might have missed this, what is the point re Wales chairman?

He was part of the evaluation team that put forward the recommendation of South Africa 3 weeks ago.

Then the IRFU were angered that his Union voted for South Africa.

It's terribly tempting to resort to national stereotypes at this point.

None. As I said it was the writing style.more than content.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Apparently scotland were quite clear they'd always vote for the bid generating the most money.

So were Wales. They said they'd vote with the recommendation. Because their Chairman was part of that recommendation.

If IRFU thought Wales were going to vote for someone other than the bid that Wales' chairman had (helped) put forward, then they are stupider than I thought.

If World Rugby could get away with pretending that the WRU chairman would be considered 'independent' (at any level, either in favour of a neighbouring Union or against it) in choosing the next venue for a World Cup that his Nation would be attending then yes, the IRFU are much more stupid than you thought.

Initially I thought the Independent yoke that did the analysing of it all really was an outside body of people with no real connection to Rugby Union but all good expert big event logisticians.  Then I heard the chairman of the WRU was one of the boys......  my eyebrows raised.  
Independent?  Of what?  Both a Rugby man flat out in the first place, a member of a member of the Unions of World Rugby, a man that even had he been part of a process that chose Ireland could then be easily accused of favouritism to us.  How the hell is that Independence? Did he go with South Africa to avoid the tag of favouritism? Pressure all round for a man picked because of his 'independence'?

And I'm not even picking on him alone - I now assume even more rugby people with affiliations were on that 'expert' list of venue choosers.  Do World Rugby know what the word Independence means?  It means that if WRU ever make a bid again in the future, they better demand that an IRFU official isn't on any 'Independent' venue selection commission.

Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

But the evaluation was biased towards SA, so France won. Also, Scotland and Wales didn't vote for Ireland solely because they can be grouped until the term 'Celt'. Shambles.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

BamBam wrote:Might have missed this, what is the point re Wales chairman?

He was part of the evaluation team that put forward the recommendation of South Africa 3 weeks ago.

Then the IRFU were angered that his Union voted for South Africa.

It's terribly tempting to resort to national stereotypes at this point.

Go ahead, and I think you're late to the party if you give in.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Lets assume that Welsh TV hands £350,000 a year to the other teams in the league
Lets also assume the Irish teams average a gate of 5000 more than the Welsh teams (it is more than that)
So at £20 a head we are talking 5000 x 20 x 10 = 1 million a year.

So gate money is far more important to Irish teams than Welsh TV money.
This does not even take into account that the figure of £350,000 is offset, to some extent, by the Irish TV money - say £100,000 for every team in the Pro14.
Lastly would Sky, or Guinness, even be interested in the Pro14 without the Irish - don't think so

Genuine question here, in amongst all of the banter, accusations and mud flinging: is the Irish rugby TV market really that much bigger than in Wales or Scotland?  We keep hearing how it's 5th sport in Ireland.  The games are well attended, but is the TV market for Sky and BT really that much bigger?  I honestly don't know.

Well I'd throw that question back your way, Griff, as it seems the taunts of under-spending (as banter ) only come our way.  So genuinely, you seriously think that when all the banknotes are counted at the end of the year, that the Welsh by far and away fund the bulk of any profits that accumulates in the bank accounts of Pro14?

I don't think the Irish haver ever pretended to pay for everything, but the continuous slur is that we pay for nothing.... except for those wandering cheating refs......  

Lovely twisting of my words, Fly. At no point did I even attempt to say that the Welsh fund the bulk of profits. I was purely commenting on the point that Sky would not EVEN be interested if it wasn't for the Irish. I'd guess that the Irish tv market would be significant but not hugely more than the Welsh and/or Scottish. I'd imagine the tv market would be similar, so if they were interested in the Irish they they'd be interested in the Welsh market too.

On the point about taunts of under funding only come your way then you need to cast you mind back to the Pro12 threads and the accusations of the Welsh not pulling their weight', devaluing the league, low crowds not bringing in the tv sponsorship ('cos they don't want to film' half empty stadia'). Trust me, the taunts were multidirectional! To paraphrase you from earlier in the thread, we have long memories as will remember the nice (and not so nice) times 

I'd love you to point me to a post suggesting you pay for nothing, I.e. €0.

Scottrf wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

But the evaluation was biased towards SA, so France won. Also, Scotland and Wales didn't vote for Ireland solely because they can be grouped until the term 'Celt'. Shambles.

One day you will contribute something worthwhile Scott. In the mean time keep trying.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

Scotland did, so it was doable to go against the recommendation.  But when the WRU, as far as I can read it, insinuated that they couldn't go against their own man's opinion then what is that?  You tell me what that is?  They didn't have to follow the recommendation.  It wasn't a directive it was a guidance.  But their reason - 'well our man was part of the team and he said South Africa...so.............  well.....................*shoulder shrug*'

Sure that's a white flag raised for undue influence in the decision (ie - wrong emphasis for the decision.)

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

But the evaluation was biased towards SA, so France won. Also, Scotland and Wales didn't vote for Ireland solely because they can be grouped until the term 'Celt'. Shambles.

One day you will contribute something worthwhile Scott. In the mean time keep trying.

All your posts are about how Ireland have been wronged at the world cup bid (because SA was too dangerous but you've changed your tune now France won). But OK.

That's a good point fly.

SecretFly wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Griff wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Well I can't speak for what the clubs thought at the time, but I personally would not welcome it and I can't imagine it would ever happen with the PL money shared by a set amount of clubs.

The last thing the Falcons need is another 3 teams coming in and beating them home and away...you lot stick with that lot.

The Irish teams would attract extra sponsorship and would increase the gates for English teams as there are so many Irish people living in the UK who would actually support their teams.

Top attendances for Champs Cup last season were Munster & Leinster.

They don't want you. Stop trying to prostitute yourselves out. They'd need two 'divisions' in the league and none of the English clubs would vote for that and risk ending up in the 2nd tier. They wouldn't want to split their revenue with you. Etc., etc., etc. I think we've been here before.

They were the ones who wanted it. Irish Provinces said no (because of loyalty to their celtic PRO12 partners).

I doubt that was the reason.

I would expect that it was not right for their own teams, including money

Very few business decisions are based just on loyalty -

On the contrary, loyalty is one of the hidden or not so hidden essentials of any joined up thinking business philosophy.  If you're Mercedes, you hope that once a buyer buys one of your products they stick with you for the rest of their lives.  You try to engender the emotion of loyalty and try to work rewarding of loyalty into your company program/philosophy/policy (Supermarket loyalty cards etc)

Indeed, Loyalty is about the only softer human-instinct emotion allowed into the grey clinical landscape of business - and not for human softness reasons but again, for bleak and greedy longview financial advantage.

You say loyalty I'd say confidence.

They're very different things but can sometimes align to give the same answer. Business is done based on confidence.

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

Scotland did, so it was doable to go against the recommendation.  But when the WRU, as far as I can read it, insinuated that they couldn't go against their own man's opinion then what is that?  You tell me what that is?  They didn't have to follow the recommendation.  It wasn't a directive it was a guidance.  But their reason - 'well our man was part of the team and he said South Africa...so.............  well.....................*shoulder shrug*'

Sure that's a white flag raised for undue influence in the decision (ie - wrong emphasis for the decision.)

Are you not reading what's being written?

Scotland were not part of the evaluation process. Wales were.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

Scotland did, so it was doable to go against the recommendation.  But when the WRU, as far as I can read it, insinuated that they couldn't go against their own man's opinion then what is that?  You tell me what that is?  They didn't have to follow the recommendation.  It wasn't a directive it was a guidance.  But their reason - 'well our man was part of the team and he said South Africa...so.............  well.....................*shoulder shrug*'

Sure that's a white flag raised for undue influence in the decision (ie - wrong emphasis for the decision.)

Are you not reading what's being written?

Scotland were not part of the evaluation process. Wales were.

That's exactly his point. He's supposed to be acting as an independent assessor, not a Welsh representative?

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

But the evaluation was biased towards SA, so France won. Also, Scotland and Wales didn't vote for Ireland solely because they can be grouped until the term 'Celt'. Shambles.

One day you will contribute something worthwhile Scott. In the mean time keep trying.

All your posts are about how Ireland have been wronged at the world cup bid (because SA was too dangerous but you've changed your tune now France won). But OK.

In your head maybe that what has happened. I pointed out flaws in the report and you drew your own conclusions and got your panties in a bunch all by yourself.

Scottrf wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Well if it's the process you're complaining about then that's fair enough. But I can't see how anyone can blame WRU for going with the evaluation report recommendation.

Scotland did, so it was doable to go against the recommendation.  But when the WRU, as far as I can read it, insinuated that they couldn't go against their own man's opinion then what is that?  You tell me what that is?  They didn't have to follow the recommendation.  It wasn't a directive it was a guidance.  But their reason - 'well our man was part of the team and he said South Africa...so.............  well.....................*shoulder shrug*'

Sure that's a white flag raised for undue influence in the decision (ie - wrong emphasis for the decision.)

Are you not reading what's being written?

Scotland were not part of the evaluation process. Wales were.

That's exactly his point. He's supposed to be acting as an independent assessor, not a Welsh representative?

Why wasn't he independent? Have you got some sort of letter from him saying that although WRU voted for South Africa, they thought France were the best bid?

Scan it in and stick it up here so we can all see.

If the wru think browne is lying I'm sure they'll say so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If the wru think browne is lying I'm sure they'll say so.

Yes I'm sure they'll issue a press release calling him a liar. That is 100% going to happen should they feel that way.

They've been asked for comments so yes they could easily dismiss that view. Similar to the comment on scotland. I see no reason to think the statements are lies.

Griff wrote:

Lovely twisting of my words, Fly. At no point did I even attempt to say that the Welsh fund the bulk of profits. I was purely commenting on the point that Sky would not EVEN be interested if it wasn't for the Irish. I'd guess that the Irish tv market would be significant but not hugely more than the Welsh and/or Scottish. I'd imagine the tv market would be similar, so if they were interested in the Irish they they'd be interested in the Welsh market too.

On the point about taunts of under funding only come your way then you need to cast you mind back to the Pro12 threads and the accusations of the Welsh not pulling their weight', devaluing the league, low crowds not bringing in the tv sponsorship ('cos they don't want to film' half empty stadia'). Trust me, the taunts were multidirectional! To paraphrase you from earlier in the thread, we have long memories as will remember the nice (and not so nice) times 

I'd love you to point me to a post suggesting you pay for nothing, I.e. €0.

I'll repeat, Griff.  I don't for one minute think Sky would be interested in Pro12 or 14 had it not got one or two high end European rugby quality sides in it Those sides in the past (the thing Sky were judging their numbers on) have been mostly two Irish sides.  
So I say, Sky was encouraged to join because of the following of both sides...and the way that sinks back into the domestic league.  
Afterall, it came from the mouths of Welshmen themselves that the only thing that really interests Leinster, Munster and Ulster is European rugby.  I'd never have said that was a lie.  It's been true.  Pro14 is a stepping stone in Irish Provinces' ambitions.  They do undervalue it in emotional terms...but that doesn't mean that they don't still fight hard in and be as highly competitive in it as the rest.  But Sky knows what it is buying into too - that journey.  So it doesn't have the European Competitions to itself.... but it has the journey to them for one, two or three sides and it has the audience that wants to watch that journey (through the Pro14 competition)

Now....................... is that me saying Sky loves us Irish?  They don't give a damn about us.  
It's money.  And if Irish Provinces fall apart and Ospreys and Glasgow become European giants instead, Sky would only stick around then for Scots and Welsh audiences and teams.  They're not there for Pro14, they are there for the audience that big successful sides bring in.  To date in Pro12/14 terms that's mostly been Irish sides.  That can change.

BUT ...I could guarantee SKY won't hang around for long if we all go down and become uncompetitive in Europe.  Sky will find their excuses to get out and the money will go with them.  So I make no apologies in my theory.  Sky are there at the moment for Irish sides and Irish audiences.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Lovely twisting of my words, Fly. At no point did I even attempt to say that the Welsh fund the bulk of profits. I was purely commenting on the point that Sky would not EVEN be interested if it wasn't for the Irish. I'd guess that the Irish tv market would be significant but not hugely more than the Welsh and/or Scottish. I'd imagine the tv market would be similar, so if they were interested in the Irish they they'd be interested in the Welsh market too.

On the point about taunts of under funding only come your way then you need to cast you mind back to the Pro12 threads and the accusations of the Welsh not pulling their weight', devaluing the league, low crowds not bringing in the tv sponsorship ('cos they don't want to film' half empty stadia'). Trust me, the taunts were multidirectional! To paraphrase you from earlier in the thread, we have long memories as will remember the nice (and not so nice) times 

I'd love you to point me to a post suggesting you pay for nothing, I.e. €0.

I'll repeat, Griff.  I don't for one minute think Sky would be interested in Pro12 or 14 had it not got one or two high end European rugby quality sides in it  Those sides in the past (the thing Sky were judging their numbers on) have been mostly two Irish sides.  
So I say, Sky was encouraged to join because of the following of both sides...and the way that sinks back into the domestic league.  
Afterall, it came from the mouths of Welshmen themselves that the only thing that really interests Leinster, Munster and Ulster is European rugby.  I'd never have said that was a lie.  It's been true.  Pro14 is a stepping stone in Irish Provinces' ambitions.  They do undervalue it in emotional terms...but that doesn't mean that they don't still fight hard in and be as highly competitive in it as the rest.  But Sky knows what it is buying into too - that journey.  So it doesn't have the European Competitions to itself.... but it has the journey to them for one, two or three sides and it has the audience that wants to watch that journey (through the Pro14 competition)

Now....................... is that me saying Sky loves us Irish?  They don't give a damn about us.  
It's money.  And if Irish Provinces fall apart and Ospreys and Glasgow become European giants instead, Sky would only stick around then for Scots and Welsh audiences and teams.  They're not there for Pro14, they are there for the audience that big successful sides bring in.  To date in Pro12/14 terms that's mostly been Irish sides.  That can change.

BUT ...I could guarantee SKY won't hang around for long if we all go down and become uncompetitive in Europe.  Sky will find their excuses to get out and the money will go with them.  So I make no apologies in my theory.  Sky are there at the moment for Irish sides and Irish audiences.

Nice editing of the quote to cut out your original words.  You said:

"So genuinely, you seriously think that when all the banknotes are counted at the end of the year, that the Welsh by far and away fund the bulk of any profits that accumulates in the bank accounts of Pro14?

...to which I'm responding No, I do not think that.  And I struggle to see how you reached that conclusion from the words written.  Where did I say that or imply it?  

I agree with the rest that you've written (about Leinster and Munster being attractive).  But do I think that Sky would come in with an offer for the pro12/14 just to get to air Munster and Leinster occasionally?  No.  I think there was some interest to show some Welsh and Scottish (and perhaps Italian) games too.  So for me, "They wouldn't even be interested if it wasn't for the Irish" is a stretch by the original poster.

Griff wrote:

"So genuinely, you seriously think that when all the banknotes are counted at the end of the year, that the Welsh by far and away fund the bulk of any profits that accumulates in the bank accounts of Pro14?

...to which I'm responding No, I do not think that.  And I struggle to see how you reached that conclusion from the words written.  Where did I say that or imply it?  

I wasn't saying you, Griff.  I was asking you, as a contributor to the debate that had swung inevitably back to the funding of Pro12/14.  I was asking you as an observer from the other side, when your colleagues there on the other side were talking about BBC Wales virtually funding the show - and then you joining the debate with a question that refocused on Ireland contribution - I was asking you do you think that BBC Wales virtually fund the whole show?

You now say I accuse you personally of saying BBC Wales virtually funds the entire Pro12/14.  I don't and haven't.  I merely asked for your opinion on that expressed notion on this thread that BBC Wales virtually bankrolls the Pro14 mantra?
You were asking us about Sky and Ireland's contribution, I was asking you to first confirm or deny that you believe BBC Wales bankrolls the Pro12/14.

I've said what I think openly about the funding.  You may think me wrong.  I still believe I'm right.  It's not because they are Irish but SKY is there because of the presence of to-date heavy hitting European sides.  So I'm answering your initial query too about Sky and Irish linked subscribers (not just in Ireland but in UK too)

In short anyway:

BBC Wales is there for Welsh sides and Welsh players. It doesn't care about the rest of us, whether we're Italian, Irish or Scots.
SKY is there for heavy-weight European sides and their audiences. It doesn't care about Pro14.
TG4 (the real Irish one, not RTE) is there for Connacht. They don't give a damn about Leinster, Munster, Ulster or any of the rest of you. Just Connacht

Perhaps the WRU and the SRU and the FIR did not vote for their "muckers" in the Pro14 because they are fed up of getting shafted by them year in year out.