Champions Cup; and the other one if someone wants to comment

First topic message reminder :

Couldn't see another thread on a quick look so sorry if I've missed it.

This weeks fixtures as follows (lifted from the beeb):

Friday
POOL 1
Connacht v Bordeaux Bègles
20:00

POOL 3
Glasgow Warriors v Northampton Saints
20:00

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 3
ASM Clermont Auvergne v Edinburgh
20:00

....Guernsey vs Bury St Edmonds as well which is a biggy

Saturday
POOL 1
Bulls v Saracens
17:30

Bristol v Lyon
20:00

POOL 2
Bath v Ulster
15:15

Toulouse v Cardiff Rugby
15:15

POOL 3
Toulon v Exeter Chiefs
13:00

Munster v Bayonne
17:30

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 1
Zebre v Cheetahs
13:00

Sharks v Pau
15:15

Dragons v Oyonnax
20:00

POOL 2
Ospreys v Benetton
17:30

POOL 3
Black Lion v Gloucester
13:00

Castres v Scarlets
15:15

Sunday
POOL 2
Racing 92 v Harlequins
17:30

POOL 4
Sale v Stade Francais
13:00

La Rochelle v Leinster
15:15

Leicester Tigers v Stormers
15:15

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 2
Perpignan v Lions
13:00

Newcastle Falcons vMontpellier
15:15

Heaf wrote:Tigers a bit fortunate with that Quins pass that went astray - looked like H-C touched it as it went over his head and was caught by the Tigers player in front ....

Not a European Game. Looked like OHC pulled his hands out the way as he was worried about touching it. Ben Youngs in behind reading it and intercepting if that's the one you mean.

Quite a scrappy game, ref seemed to miss a few bits and bobs for both sides but generally got the big things right like the disallowed try.

Ooops my bad ... bit disappointed Evans missed the last (easy) conversion as that would have given me max points on Superbru

They should've let the other Evans take it. The kid was on fire all match. It's nice seeing Will fit and excelling again. He's such a fun player to watch. As a Tigers fan, it was a gut shot when he left the season after Thacker moved on. One of those players who always seems to do positive things when he's on the pitch.

https://www.bristolbearsrugby.com/bristol-bears-men/epcr-to-appeal-josh-caulfield-red-card-verdict/

EPCR is appealing the Caulfield verdict.

Usually, appeals like these are to decide whether the laws have been properly administered, and not to relitigate the original act.

Not sure where the full Caulfield judgement is published, however a reddit thread claims this is part of the panel's finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1adw5dt/epcr_to_appeal_josh_caulfield_red_card_verdict/

On a couple of run throughs of the video footage, it is very easy to see why the referee and TMO thought it was an intentional act, justifying a red card. Having heard the player’s explanation, and had the benefit of several more angles, we considered that it was more likely than not that the act was not intentional.

We accepted the player’s account that his intention was to put his foot over the prone player’s head in order to enter the ruck through the gate. We did not accept that any push/ contact from Bristol 7 contributed to his movement, but did accept that he lifted his leg in order to clear the Connacht 3 on the ground. In doing so he lost his balance from a combination of the prone player moving and the realisation that his own face was about to be struck by Bristol 3’s foot protruding from the ruck, thus causing his foot to come into accidental contact with Mr Bealham.

He carried out a similar action successfully during the same passage of play. We considered there was sufficient recklessness to merit a red card but with mitigating factors from the circumstances to justify a downgrade to a yellow.

As a general description of what happened, many would probably agree, aside from Connacht fans on the42.ie, calling Caulfield a thug, and wanting him banned for a year.

However, if that is the real text, then you can see why the EPCR would appeal. The panel seems to have accepted that it was an accident (not intentional) but was nevertheless reckless, and so constituted foul play. Once you are there, then you can't mitigate down.

The judgement seems to hold Bealham slighly liable for the outcome because of the way he was moving (east to west, rather than north to south), to get out the way. That also makes no sense, because World Rugby guidance says tacklers ought to move east to west to clear the area.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/15/detail/

Surely if successful then it has a significant impact on how the game is played. The only 'recklessness' there is is stepping over a prone player...so are they really trying to say that that is a red card offence?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Surely if successful then it has a significant impact on how the game is played.

The way the laws are written, a red card would be the right result, given the findings of fact. It could also have been ruled as an unintentional, unavoidable, non-reckless accident, which would carry no penalty. The panel chose not to do that. Any other outcome needs differently written, or interpreted, laws.

I don't think the appeal can reassess findings of fact, so the main purpose of the EPCR appeal is to make sure the judgement is consistent with what World Rugby has been telling referees to do.

Josh Caulfield has been banned for four weeks.

Once the first disciplinary panel decided his boot in Bealham's face constituted foul play, then that was the only outcome consistent with current laws and guidance.

The next step should be to work out why the members of the original panel - Paul Thomas (Wales), Marcello D’Orey (Portugal) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) - didn't know that. There's no point in World Rugby spending time telling referees how to officiate, if they don't also tell members of disciplinary committees the same message.

And given the finding that stepping over someone is reckless any instance of this should be a red card now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And given the finding that stepping over someone is reckless any instance of this should be a red card now.

You are under the impression this result has created a new law or interpretation. It hasn't. It is only reaffirming existing laws and interpretations.

It was open to the referee, or the disciplinary panel to say Caulfield's action wasn't foul play, and merited no penalty. As soon as the panel agreed with the referee that it was foul play, then they should have upheld the red card. Instead, they went off piste, and tried to have the best of both worlds.

If someone steps, and catches an opponent in the face, then it won't be a red card if the referee or disciplinary panel judges decides it wasn't intentional, reckless, or unavoidable.

That's what happened when James Horwill caught Alun Wyn Jones during the Lions series:



While Horwill was cleared by a disciplinary panel, the decision was also appealed.  However, the appeal panel cannot relitigate the original case, it can only decide if the laws and guidance were followed. In Horwill's case, the orginal disciplinary panel decided Horwill's action wasn't foul play, so deserved no punishment. The appeal panel found no fault with that logic.

In Caulfield's case, the appeal panel faulted the logic behind his decision because you can't say a boot in the face is foul play (reckless), then apply mitigation because it wasn't intentional.

Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

Well they ruled this accidental too. But as no one, including WR are appealing that the action of stepping over someone is reckless then anyone doing so is being reckless.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

The ref clearly said that the stamp was intentional.

I'd be surprised if the panel agreed with that and only gave him 4 weeks for an intentional stamp to the head.

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

The ref clearly said that the stamp was intentional.

I'd be surprised if the panel agreed with that and only gave him 4 weeks for an intentional stamp to the head.

No he didn't. He thought it was reckless, which is the same conclusion the first disciplinary panel reached.

The appeal panel had no opinion on the original onfield decision. Their role was only to decide if the disciplinary panel had followed the laws.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well they ruled this accidental too. But as no one, including WR are appealing that the action of stepping over someone is reckless then anyone doing so is being reckless.

There's been no mention of "accidental", so no one has ruled that. The three conditions for foul play are intentional, reckless or avoidable. If one of those conditions is met, then the action is ruled foul play.

If an action is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it is not foul play. When something on a rugby field is not foul play, then we typically call it "accidental".

It's in this terminology that the first Caulfield disciplinary panel went wrong. They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face. However "intention" is one of the three conditions for foul play. Once the panel said Caulfield was reckless, it didn't matter what he intended. However, the panel wanted to go back to intention for mitigation, which they couldn't do.

It is still open for any referee or disciplinary panel to decide that putting a foot into someone's face is not reckless.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

The ref clearly said that the stamp was intentional.

I'd be surprised if the panel agreed with that and only gave him 4 weeks for an intentional stamp to the head.

No he didn't. He thought it was reckless, which is the same conclusion the first disciplinary panel reached.

The appeal panel had no opinion on the original onfield decision. Their role was only to decide if the disciplinary panel had followed the laws.

Yes he did

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

And as recorded in the original decision

'On a couple of run throughs of the video footage, it is very easy to see why the referee and TMO thought it was an intentional act'

https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/614066bc-8a80-47c1-9ae3-8c511674f2b4.pdf

Margin_Walker wrote:No he didn't

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

That's the point. The referee then wrote it up as reckless, which would have produced the same result. This is likely why the disciplinary panel got itself into a muddle over reckless and intentional.

It was wide open for the disciplinary panel to decide the action wasn't reckless, intentional or avoidable and so wasn't foul play. They didn't go that route.

I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:No he didn't

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

That's the point. The referee then wrote it up as reckless, which would have produced the same result. This is likely why the disciplinary panel got itself into a muddle over reckless and intentional.

It was wide open for the disciplinary panel to decide the action wasn't reckless, intentional or avoidable and so wasn't foul play. They didn't go that route.

You just said he didn't say it's intentional though. The original judgement then refers to the ref and TMO having it as intentional and makes no mention of the ref's report changing their view to reckless.

Now that may have happened, but I've not seen the report from the ref. Do you have a link for that?

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:No he didn't

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

That's the point. The referee then wrote it up as reckless, which would have produced the same result. This is likely why the disciplinary panel got itself into a muddle over reckless and intentional.

It was wide open for the disciplinary panel to decide the action wasn't reckless, intentional or avoidable and so wasn't foul play. They didn't go that route.

You just said he didn't say it's intentional though. The original judgement then refers to the ref and TMO having it as intentional and makes no mention of the ref's report changing their view to reckless.

Now that may have happened, but I've not seen the report from the ref. Do you have a link for that?

I don't have a link. The referee's report is one of the submissions to the panel, which Bristol brought up. The thing is, it's virtually standard practice for referees to submit reports citing recklessness as the reason for foul play. Especially referees, like Brousset, operating in a second language. Whatever you think in the heat of the moment, intention is a psychological judgement call, and avoidable is a physics lesson, so it's just plain easier for referees who think something is foul play to cite recklessness.

The disciplinary panel should not have got sucked into choosing between intentional vs reckless because either was enough to be foul play, which meant red.

The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as reckless instead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Accidental is your word, not theirs. You are mixing up intentional and accidental, when the first has a specific legal meaning.

Under the current guidance, if an act is intentional, reckless or avoidable then it is foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

If an act is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it not foul play. You might call that an accident.

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out  of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

I can't see Bristol calling that out anywhere in their press releases on the matter. Is there a link for that, as I may have missed it?

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out  of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

I can't see Bristol calling that out anywhere in their press releases on the matter. Is there a link for that, as I may have missed it?

I haven't seen any press releases from the club. While none of this has been spoken about out of turn, Bristol's sports lawyers are well-known, and they were quick to share their experiences after the initial win.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out  of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

I can't see Bristol calling that out anywhere in their press releases on the matter. Is there a link for that, as I may have missed it?

I haven't seen any press releases from the club. While none of this has been spoken about out of turn, Bristol's sports lawyers are well-known, and they were quick to share their experiences after the initial win.

Righto, forget it. It's a 'trust me bro' thing.

I'm out

Margin_Walker wrote:Righto, forget it. It's a 'trust me bro' thing.

I'm out

When the panel decided it was reckless, and foul play, it didn't matter what the referee said onfield and in his report.

I brought that difference up as a possible reason why the panel got so confused.

If you aren't interested in that, then ignore it. It didn't affect the appeal panel's decision.

You seemed to have circled back to foul play = automatic red, which it isn't as mitigation can be applied unless it's intentional or 'always illegal'?  

The officials decided it was intentional on the day so red would have been correct for what they thought.  

The panel seemed to decide it wasn't intentional but was reckless and applied mitigation, as reckless doesn't automatically = red.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Accidental is your word, not theirs. You are mixing up intentional and accidental, when the first has a specific legal meaning.

Under the current guidance, if an act is intentional, reckless or avoidable then it is foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

If an act is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it not foul play. You might call that an accident.

You can be reckless and an incident avoidable and it can be an accident.

Heaf wrote:You seemed to have circled back to foul play = automatic red, which it isn't as mitigation can be applied unless it's intentional or 'always illegal'?  

The officials decided it was intentional on the day so red would have been correct for what they thought.  

The panel seemed to decide it wasn't intentional but was reckless and applied mitigation, as reckless doesn't automatically = red.

I've never said foul play = automatic red.

I have said an always illegal act of foul play gets no mitigation. (Earlier in the thread, I gave you an example of an act of foul play which does get mitigation, to draw the distinction.)

So, if the foul play involves an always illegal act, which starts at a red card, then it stays at a red card. That's what happened in this case.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Accidental is your word, not theirs. You are mixing up intentional and accidental, when the first has a specific legal meaning.

Under the current guidance, if an act is intentional, reckless or avoidable then it is foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

If an act is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it not foul play. You might call that an accident.

You can be reckless and an incident avoidable and it can be an accident.

You've left out "foul play", so you are mixing legal terms in rugby, and common language.

If you are reckless, and your action is avoidable, then your action constitutes foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Heaf wrote:You seemed to have circled back to foul play = automatic red, which it isn't as mitigation can be applied unless it's intentional or 'always illegal'?  

The officials decided it was intentional on the day so red would have been correct for what they thought.  

The panel seemed to decide it wasn't intentional but was reckless and applied mitigation, as reckless doesn't automatically = red.

I've never said foul play = automatic red.  

I have said an always illegal act of foul play gets no mitigation. (Earlier in the thread, I gave you an example of an act of foul play which does get mitigation, to draw the distinction.)

So, if the foul play involves an always illegal act, which starts at a red card, then it stays at a red card. That's what happened in this case.

So you're saying trying to step over a prone player is always illegal?    

The only way I see a boot in the face being 'always illegal' is if it's intentional - which the officials thought it was so red card was correct judgement on that basis.

However the panel say they didn't think it was intentional (and presumably not always illegal) so applied mitigation.

Premier sports are set to get the rights for next year. Can the competition sink any lower before it just disappears?

I was hoping Premier Sports would get it. They already have URC & Top 14. If they were to add the Premiership as well at some stage it would be a one stop shop for club rugby fans in the UK.

I will say it makes this years renewal I paid at 79 bucks a total bargain.

I'll be honest though Europe still has major problems and they need to sort out how qualification works. I dont think 8 English teams should be qualifying for a start. And the Group stage system is still dire with no real jeopardy in the group stages.

So Premier Sports have now been confirmed with coverage of European Rugby for the next 3 years.

On a personal level that's good news for me. After the Viaplay transfer Premier Sports renewal offered a special deal for the year for 80 quid. I was always going to pay the 100 for just the URC coverage so the discount was nice anyway but now will be even better value for next season.

No doubt they probably will need to raise the prices after this year to cover this but as long as it doesnt get to the extreme rates TNT are charging im happy to pay more to have the coverage on one platform.

I'm guessing this might be an issue for English Premiership fans as this adds a subscription.

I found it interesting that Premier Sports mentioned they have ambitions to make it a one stop shop for rugby moving forward with them showing interest in internationals as well. Think if the Premiership moved to this platform as well it would at least make it so that one subscription would then cover all the rugby any fan would like to watch.

The issue with TNT sports is the majority of the sub fee is actually paying for football rights. I'm sure some people watch both sports but I'm not one of them so I would rather my sub go into rugby as a sport.

Any word on how much the deal is worth compared to TNTs?

They didnt release details except that they did say it was for a significant increase from the TNT deal and stated clubs would gain from this.

This was the direct quote

"‘I won’t give you the level, but it provides a significant uplift and it was certainly a very important point. This is the result of a very competitive process which ended in Premier Sports winning based on three criteria: growing the game, finances for the club and viewership and sponsorship exposure.

‘The priority was club finances overall. We did strike a balance after a difficult discussion."

Raynaud added: ‘This is an exclusive deal. There are a couple of carve outs. There will be a game per week on S4C and one Irish match on RTE in the first season. It is true free-to-air does have its advantages. But it is also true that free-to-air is reinventing themselves.

‘The fact that English fans had both the European competitions and the domestic competition as part of one package was the exception.

‘I accept that for an English rugby fan, there will be a change in habits. I think we have chosen a provider with a fantastic offering and a very affordable subscription.

‘I am hoping we will convince hundreds of thousands to add this on. It is very easy and accessible. It is very affordable. We have taken this into account.’

Welshmushroom wrote:They didnt release details except that they did say it was for a significant increase from the TNT deal and stated clubs would gain from this.  

Well at least that is a positive, along with not having to listen to TNTs awful commentary and punditry. I am worried about sponsorship as viewership will no doubt take a big hit.

Thing is for a cancel anytime subscription of 11 quid for a lot of TNT subscribers it is possible to only sub to Premier Sports for 3-4 months which would allow them to cover the periods the EPCR is played in. So essentially for a max of £44 you will still get full access to it which is fairly reasonable.

As I said I do hope Premier Sports look at taking the Premiership on as well as that would at least help out the English rugby fan in the long run. That said I do wonder how many people sub to TNT for both football and rugby......

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:They didnt release details except that they did say it was for a significant increase from the TNT deal and stated clubs would gain from this.  

Well at least that is a positive, along with not having to listen to TNTs awful commentary and punditry. I am worried about sponsorship as viewership will no doubt take a big hit.

Compared to Sky, TNT was a massive uplift in quality. If they could let Dayglo go they'd improve things dramatically mind. Adding Warburton, Kayseri and BOD for the European games over recent seasons was good.

I don't think I've seen anything on Premier Sports previously. I imagine that a proportion of the English fan base simply won't watch the European games if there's any real effort involved in taking on another subscription. Right now I might be in that proportion especially when I see the following when googling presenters

"The Investec Champions Cup and EPCR Challenge Cup will be at the heart of this new offering, led by key rugby personalities including Stephen Ferris, John Barclay, Tom Shanklin and Ryan Wilson."

That's a bargain bin effort.

You mention you might be in that group. Would that mean if they added to the commentary team you would be tempted to subscribe or is the second sub putting you off?

I'd imagine people are used to multiple subs and cancelling unused periods as people have been doing those things with Netflix, Prime, Disney+, Paramount etc for years.

I still think £44 for 4 months of sport is actually pretty good value. Given TNT base sport package for the same period would be double that.

Those are the core URC presenters

They will undoubtedly bring in others for the Euro games, in the same way that TNT often borrowed them for their coverage of non-English teams.

Premier Sports coverage has been improving year on year, admittedly from a pretty low base. They will have to up their game even more for this but have already had some practice with Challenge Cup matches last season.

By any standards in the global pay TV market, premier sports is pretty good value, even more so in that you can dip in and out and not get tied to long term contracts and I think people will start coming round to that reasonably quickly when they do the maths.

You already get, URC and Top 14 and Champs Cup, still some of the best and most unpredictable games out there, to come.

You would imagine if they can grow their market that they will fancy the English Prem and some international matches to come.

I think the main thing to remember is TNT have also lowered their deal with Premiership rugby due to the reduced teams. Premiership rugby seemed to think they could get a better deal once this contract is up but my understanding is TNT won't increase the deal which may indicate that Premiership rugby will be offered to other broadcasters. That could be anyone but it could leave a chance for Premier Sport to add them.

I couldn't find any source to say what that TNT deal for the next 2 years is but it must be lower than just a per team ratio as the league has less teams to pay. Baxter already said the money received is a lot less than previously so the deduction must have been greater than a proportional drop as it has affected all the remaining clubs with a reduction in TV revenue.

Part of the anticipated reduction for Prem teams was based on the European TV money falling and the Prem having to hand over coverage of every game to TNT as part of the new deal which kills off the PRTV offering. I doubt the Prem got close to the old £110m deal but there were less mouths to feed with the £110m.

TNT bringing on the football coverage was the worst thing they ever did. Raised prices for something I couldn't care less about. They've got the cycling and the rugby which is why I like it currently.

Hopefully the acquisition of the Euro rights helps Premier Sports acquire more advertising and membership revenue to keep pushing those improvements. The odd new layout of the Euro games and adding the non-Euro SA sides have devalued the competition for me.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:They didnt release details except that they did say it was for a significant increase from the TNT deal and stated clubs would gain from this.  

Well at least that is a positive, along with not having to listen to TNTs awful commentary and punditry. I am worried about sponsorship as viewership will no doubt take a big hit.

Compared to Sky, TNT was a massive uplift in quality. If they could let Dayglo go they'd improve things dramatically mind. Adding Warburton, Kayseri and BOD for the European games over recent seasons was good.

I don't think I've seen anything on Premier Sports previously. I imagine that a proportion of the English fan base simply won't watch the European games if there's any real effort involved in taking on another subscription. Right now I might be in that proportion especially when I see the following when googling presenters

"The Investec Champions Cup and EPCR Challenge Cup will be at the heart of this new offering, led by key rugby personalities including Stephen Ferris, John Barclay, Tom Shanklin and Ryan Wilson."

That's a bargain bin effort.

I couldn't disagree anymore and I know for a fact that TNTs coverage is not well received here in Ireland. Even BOD has gone from Ireland's darling to being absolutely despised (as a pundit) even in Leinster circles, which is quite astonishing.

Sky had their issues but they were incredibly neutral with their commentary and punditry (imo) and did a fantastic job marketing and putting the European weeks front and center.

Good to see URC and Champs/Challenge cup coming under one subscription. I think we're unlucky to be living in a time of mass subscription based business models. In ten years time many of the underperforming companies will hopefully be finished and we can all enter the MetaNetGoogleverse to enjoy our fully immersive rugby experience.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:They didnt release details except that they did say it was for a significant increase from the TNT deal and stated clubs would gain from this.  

Well at least that is a positive, along with not having to listen to TNTs awful commentary and punditry. I am worried about sponsorship as viewership will no doubt take a big hit.

Compared to Sky, TNT was a massive uplift in quality. If they could let Dayglo go they'd improve things dramatically mind. Adding Warburton, Kayseri and BOD for the European games over recent seasons was good.

I don't think I've seen anything on Premier Sports previously. I imagine that a proportion of the English fan base simply won't watch the European games if there's any real effort involved in taking on another subscription. Right now I might be in that proportion especially when I see the following when googling presenters

"The Investec Champions Cup and EPCR Challenge Cup will be at the heart of this new offering, led by key rugby personalities including Stephen Ferris, John Barclay, Tom Shanklin and Ryan Wilson."

That's a bargain bin effort.

I couldn't disagree anymore and I know for a fact that TNTs coverage is not well received here in Ireland. Even BOD has gone from Ireland's darling to being absolutely despised (as a pundit) even in Leinster circles, which is quite astonishing.

Sky had their issues but they were incredibly neutral with their commentary and punditry (imo) and did a fantastic job marketing and putting the European weeks front and center.

I don't know a fan in England who didn't rejoice at Sky losing the rugby coverage. Minimum effort, maximum waffle. Obviously as a Tigers fan I remember it mainly for Stuart Barnes openly routing for the opposition every time we played.

I am happy with the Premier news, because I will undoubtedly subscribe and I rely on Channel 4 for European games (no TNT). I don't overly like a lot of the commentary teams (especially Welsh reps like Holley, Shanklin and Shane Williams), but I also suspect that this will improve now they are growing further.

Mad to think of the panning that Premier got on here from some quarters and how much rugby they now have.