BT buy Premiership rights from next season

First topic message reminder :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures/20493.php#.UFBpfLKPV5B


Another subscription to pay by the sounds of it. If Sky are losing the rights though, it'll mean no more Barnes

PRL have no right to speak for the other home unions, if none of the content of the BT agreement thus far has been illegal I'm pretty sure that this is.

How can either party be allowed by law to deal in UK terms on this agreement? They can't, that's the thing. Not as long as it affects the viewing rights of the others unions which it appears to do.

The Celtic unions (and anyone else whose rights are involved but whom PRL kindly didn't consult) should take them to the cleaners over this.

You know rather than Rabo team looking at the SA teams for a new comp, how about we look across the Atlantic?

The Super XV have had a look into it,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Rugby

"Australian sports broadcasting analyst Colin Smith noted that the addition of Japanese and American teams could result in a TV deal worth more than A$1 billion beyond 2020. Specifically, he stated, "You could have a deal comparable to the other major sports in Australia. Rugby is a college (university) sport in the US, if soccer can create its own league there and sell teams for $40 million, imagine what you could do in 10–12 years with rugby in that market."[19] By comparison, the largest TV deal in Australian sport, that of the Australian Football League (Australian rules), is worth A$1.26 billion from 2012–16. Even that figure is dwarfed by the TV contracts of the NFL. That league's current contracts are worth more than US$4 billion annually."

Sounds good to me,
There are over 450,000 players registered with USA Rugby; including over 67,000 high school students.[2] The 2588 clubs in the United States are governed by seven Territorial Unions and 37 Local Unions.

Sounds like a good competation good capture the imagation, more players and clubs than England or France.

The Rugby Super League, usually referred to as simply the Super League, is a national rugby union competition currently contested by eight clubs in the United States.

12 Rabo teams 8 USA teams this could have legs, Hope the Pro 12 have looked into it

The reason we would look at the Saffers, and have already, is no time difference issue . Makes planning a hell of a lot easier. Also the problem with teams outside of the Tri Nations is the standard of the opposition.

Knowsit17 wrote:PRL have no right to speak for the other home unions, if none of the content of the BT agreement thus far has been illegal I'm pretty sure that this is.

How can either party be allowed by law to deal in UK terms on this agreement? They can't, that's the thing. Not as long as it affects the viewing rights of the others unions which it appears to do.

The Celtic unions (and anyone else whose rights are involved but whom PRL kindly didn't consult) should take them to the cleaners over this.

Have you actually read what the PRL have done ?

The PRL have sold the rights to English Club Rugby Premiership Rugby says BT has exclusive rights to broadcast Premiership matches from next season, and European games involving Premiership sides in the UK from the 2014-15 season, you automatically assume that the deal will be in for the European Cup, which is far from the case as both the PRL and LNR have given notice for ERC their intention to withdraw from the HEC, so the HEC will still exist for the Celtic Nations and the broadcast deal with Sky, whilst the PRL & NLR will play in a Anglo/French League. Who are they going to take to the cleaners and over what ? The ERC deal will still exist and the ERC will show games on Sky involving Rabo 12 teams plus Italy, whilst England and France having resigned from the ERC will have their matches shown under a different deal.

Of course it would all be a hell of a lot easier to find a compromise within Europe. Even if within the same time-zone, SA remains 8000 miles away.

I don't think SA would leave SANZAR either, they use it as threat but it is always an empty one.

Super rugby should get a bigger deal next time round so they'll get more money, that should satisfy them

PRL have no right to speak for the other home unions, if none of the content of the BT agreement thus far has been illegal I'm pretty sure that this is.

And equally ERC have no right to speak for the English clubs post 2014 unless they have been given the ok by the PRL and the RFU.

All this doom and gloom is not called for - the various leagues will still go on, the 6N will still go on and the RWC will still go on - so lots of rugby to watch.

For those that are bemoaning the potential demise of the HC, well my side has not been in it for years and I still get my fix of rugby.

If we are really lucky this will accelerate the move to a European League (two or three tiers) that will replace the elitist HC - everyone becomes involved, not just selected teams fron the 6N Unions

TrailApe wrote:

PRL have no right to speak for the other home unions, if none of the content of the BT agreement thus far has been illegal I'm pretty sure that this is.

And equally ERC have no right to speak for the English clubs post 2014 unless they have been given the ok by the PRL and the RFU.

All this doom and gloom is not called for - the various leagues will still go on, the 6N will still go on and the RWC will still go on - so lots of rugby to watch.

For those that are bemoaning the potential demise of the HC, well my side has not been in it for years and I still get my fix of rugby.

If we are really lucky this will accelerate the move to a European League (two or three tiers) that will replace the elitist HC - everyone becomes involved, not just selected teams fron the 6N Unions

Thats the last thing i want! Look at how bad the super 15 format is.

The reason I say it Geoff is I think that SA use the Rabo and Rabo use SA as bluffs to bargain with.

Don't think either of them are serious, seasons are different.

Now if the H-Cup falls through why not look at forming 2 teams in the USA and adding them to the Leugue?

maybe 4 teams after time?

Say 2 new franchises based in Boston and Newyork at the start, They are a number of decent US players they could attract, an dI'd say they would be able to attract big Crowds from the American-irish community When the Provinces visit, and maybe same with the other teams.

US tv deal and all Rabo tv deals go into a central pot, I'd say this TV could grow quickly to rival the Jeff deal in a few years.

Teams get to go to USA on a mini tour, play the two teams then back.

Also if you could then have a 14 team Pro 12 an da short Cup comp between the SA teams and Pro 12 teams. I'd soon say in could turn into the best Leauge, and Cup comp in Europe.

Pro 12 V SA teams sounds better than Anglo/French cup.

Pro 12 v SA teams, not going to happen.

USA is a possibility though, but i think they would rather go with Super rugby.
They are trying to set up their own pro comp as well in the next 3/4 years.

Leedscowboys wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:PRL have no right to speak for the other home unions, if none of the content of the BT agreement thus far has been illegal I'm pretty sure that this is.

How can either party be allowed by law to deal in UK terms on this agreement? They can't, that's the thing. Not as long as it affects the viewing rights of the others unions which it appears to do.

The Celtic unions (and anyone else whose rights are involved but whom PRL kindly didn't consult) should take them to the cleaners over this.

Have you actually read what the PRL have done ?

The PRL have sold the rights to English Club Rugby Premiership Rugby says BT has exclusive rights to broadcast Premiership matches from next season, and European games involving Premiership sides in the UK from the 2014-15 season, you automatically assume that the deal will be in for the European Cup, which is far from the case as both the PRL and LNR have given notice for ERC their intention to withdraw from the HEC, so the HEC will still exist for the Celtic Nations and the broadcast deal with Sky, whilst the PRL & NLR will play in a Anglo/French League. Who are they going to take to the cleaners and over what ? The ERC deal will still exist and the ERC will show games on Sky involving Rabo 12 teams plus Italy, whilst England and France having resigned from the ERC will have their matches shown under a different deal.

First of all, do you honestly think the PRL are working with the long term intention of competing in an Anglo-French setup? The threat to pull out is just their attempt at playing hardball, if the ERC did call their bluff and PRL were forced to pull out they'd take significant losses and would have to come crawling back begging re-entry eventually.

Secondly, you think it's magically legal for the PRL to sell rights involving sides other than their own for any future Euro comp if not this one? If the ERC complied and negotiated a new format, they'd still be in a sticky situation owing to the fact that the Celtic unions would never stand for fixtures involving their clubs, some on their own soil, being sold off without their consent. It's pretty much lose-lose for the PRL now that they've managed to dig themselves this deep.

If the HEC does go down the chute the Pro12 clubs could move the season to the summer and run concurrent with Super Rugby. Would improve the Pro12 product with the hope of even bigger crowds if its played in warmer weather. Run from Feb to Aug.

Then have a Currie Cup/ITM Cup style comp at the end of the season or a SA / Pro 12 cross over comp from Sept to Oct. Although SA might not want to move the Currie Cup.

Would it be fair to suggest that the Dublin ERC meetings will not be so much a negotiation between warring factions of the Franglos v the Rabonations - rather as the Fraglos v Ireland? As they appear to be the only Rabo Union at the table with any cards to play and chips to play.

Well we might have some chips but I'm not sure what cards we have....

the only cards you old fashion elitist boys have Portnoy is population.

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:the only cards you old fashion elitist boys have Portnoy is population.

And now you finally show the chip on your shoulder

Thought you might enjoy Paul Rees in today's Grauniad, Portnoy:

Tapping in to the commercial value of Europe

Next week's ERC meeting in Dublin, which will discuss the notice given by clubs in England and France to pull out of the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cups unless changes are made, was given an added resonance on Wednesday by the television deal between Premiership Rugby and BT.

The contract includes the right for BT to show matches involving Premiership clubs in any European competition from 2014-15, when the current Heineken Cup agreement, which stipulates that television contracts are negotiated solely by ERC, will have ended, even if the organisers tried to argue that the deal with Sky concludes in 2015: there is nothing to sell after the end of next season.

Premiership Rugby hopes the BT contract will have strengthened its bargaining position, and not just because it says it will put all the money into the European pot to be shared by all the other competing nations. It has for some time maintained that the commercial value of the European competitions has not been maximised, to the detriment of all.

In one sense, the argument over how many clubs should take part in the Heineken Cup and how they qualify is a smokescreen. What the French and English want are tournaments that are run in a more hard-nosed way, maximising commercial value and giving the clubs greater administrative sway.

They see ERC, with some justification, as a Dublin enclave with an in-built majority against them. Two years ago, they failed to replace Jean-Pierre Lux as chairman with Leicester's Peter Wheeler and since then they have reshaped their strategy with notice to quit a means to an end.

ERC is largely run by unions. While there may be support for the stance taken by Premiership Rugby and the Top 14 among the hard-up Welsh regions, in particular, the unions have enough voting power to thwart change; which is why a breakaway has been threatened.

ERC predictably sought refuge in IRB regulations, one of which says that only unions may negotiate television contracts, but it will gain nothing clambering on board the ark. The failure of some unions in Europe to manage the change to professionalism is still haunting them. They have to try to manage change, looking to protect the vulnerable, and that means treating clubs as equals, not serfs.

The stakes are high, which could be bad news for Scotland and Italy, countries with a negligible television value. Commercial aggression is one thing, but a sense of the collective has bound European rugby over the years, even surviving professionalism.

Premiership Rugby will, though, only be able to go so far. Nothing will challenge the pre-eminence of the Top 14 in France, a league that has been running longer than any in Europe. Whatever happens with the Heineken Cup, French clubs will always put their league first, as they always have.

gowales wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:the only cards you old fashion elitist boys have Portnoy is population.

And now you finally show the chip on your shoulder

excuse me. i'm well balanced. i have a chip on both shoulders.

The Pro 12 have already been in serious discussions with the Saffers in the past.

Any arrangement would not be instead of the Super15 it would be as well as.

I suspect a tournament covering April/May before the Super 15 and after the Pro12.

IMHO (and I haven't read the whole thread) A comp with France, Italy, Ireland, Wales and Scotland will be a bigger draw than one with England and France.

The French will see that.

The interesting part for me is what will happen at IRB level.

I cant help but feel the PRL are jumping the gun. Its all well and good spouting a Anglo French competition but my understanding is that any new tournament requires IRB sanctioning. Granted in the past this has been a formality but given that 4 out of 6 of the 6 Nations Unions would be unhappy with this being granted. If therefore Italy, Ireland, Scotland & Wales register complaints and given they would find likely find allies from the SH nations who already do not like their players being poached by increasing French budgets.

Now sure they could carry on regardless but that risks expulsion by the IRB. Sanctions would essentially cause them to stop being a part of their exhisting unions and players involved would infact be prohibited from playing any international rugby. That could be financial suicide for English Rugby. French Club rugby could survive it though.

Whats interesting is that none of the Unions have issued statements - including the RFU. I wonder if this is part of a master plan to disolve English Club Rugby into Regions. The reason I say this is English's Rugby Elite (Leicester, Bath & Saracens) would love nothing better to not have to abide by the Salary Cap that is forced on them. Could this be the start of a PRL Club Rift as well as we see some of Englands best club sides break away as a result of IRB club sanctions and become the New Super Clubs/Regions which the RFU have secretly wanted all along?

Wishful thinking but some of these scenarios could well play out. I still mantain that 50% of the competiting teams from France and England dont actually contribute anything to HC rugby anyway. The reality is some already resign themselves to not qualifying for the Qtrs and field weakend teams as a result. If this was about elitism granted maybe only a few Rabbo sides should be allowed in but equally by that measure there are only 2 or 3 teams in France and England that should be allowed to compete.

One thing is clear. McCafferty postures to much.

I just hope us Welsh stay unified with our Celtic cousins because we've been known to leave them high and dry on occassions. Stay strong WRU & the Regions.

BTW someone posted a link on here that there is no money in Russia for Rugby. This is total rubbish. The game is seing major investments currently and they have brough in top coaches and facilities to help them since the game has got into the Olympics. Their main problem is that they do not have any real top grade rugby to measure themselves by. Cash certanly wont be an issue as they will be state funded.

They'd win less though

I know one thing if McCafferty has brockered this deal behind the ERC back saying "well im only trying to get us all more money" I fear he has made a big mistake. He's totally within his rights to do this if the intention is to leave the HC. By actually confirming this contract though he may infact have already forced the ERC hand. I can believe for one second that Ireland, Wales, Scotland & Italy have not been talking to people about this behind the scences.

The funny thing is despite McCafferty is the only one who is saying about the Anglo/French Tournament. The French have already gone on record they are looking at alternative scenarios for those fixtures. That could mean anything. Rumours there are they would like to see an end to that fixture and a increase in teams particpating in the top 14. That could potentially leave the English with no one to play.

Also if the ERC did vote to allow the ERC to do the TV deal then the PRL find themselves in a stick situation with insider trading and all that and agreeing to something that they weren't allowed to do.

I cant help but feel the PRL are jumping the gun. Its all well and good spouting a Anglo French competition but my understanding is that any new tournament requires IRB sanctioning

not really the IRB governs International aspect hence International Rugby Board, Domestic Unions control their own competition I would guess the FFR will be on the side of the LNR the RFU a different kettle of fish, the RFU will have 2 choices a) Back the new domestic league and continue to have access to elite Rugby players or b) go against the domestic league and lose access to the elite players and try to sell 80k tickets at Twickenham to see NZ play England comprised of players from the Championship and National 1

I havent been following the thread. Are AP fans happy that BT are showing the games?

Brendan wrote:Also if the ERC did vote to allow the ERC to do the TV deal then the PRL find themselves in a stick situation with insider trading and all that and agreeing to something that they weren't allowed to do.

Insider trading on what, what shares have been manipulated what stock will rise and faill

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I havent been following the thread. Are AP fans happy that BT are showing the games?

So far as I can tell, the actual host broadcaster doesn't really matter as these things tends to slip over the broadcast providers to consumers.

Mind you, tonight's Sky Rugby Club could be interesting.

Leedscowboys wrote:

Brendan wrote:Also if the ERC did vote to allow the ERC to do the TV deal then the PRL find themselves in a stick situation with insider trading and all that and agreeing to something that they weren't allowed to do.

Insider trading on what, what shares have been manipulated what stock will rise and faill

If the PRL knew that the ERC were going to be selling rights to show European competions and they used that to get a bigger pay from BT then that is insider trading.
Also if the PRL were selling things that they knew they didn't have a right to that makes them liable.

Anyway any competion were teams will not be able to watch their team play away matches is not a better competion. Also the PRL have no right to sell exculive right to PRL teams in the UK, only in England. They can't tell the WRU, SRU and IRFU that they can't show away games for their teams as they are in the UK but its ok for the IRFU (ROI) and France and Italy can show home PRL games as they are not in the UK

Brendan wrote:

Leedscowboys wrote:

Brendan wrote:Also if the ERC did vote to allow the ERC to do the TV deal then the PRL find themselves in a stick situation with insider trading and all that and agreeing to something that they weren't allowed to do.

Insider trading on what, what shares have been manipulated what stock will rise and faill

If the PRL knew that the ERC were going to be selling rights to show European competions and they used that to get a bigger pay from BT then that is insider trading.
Also if the PRL were selling things that they knew they didn't have a right to that makes them liable.

The PRL effectively own the TV rights to their home games. In exactly the same way Summer Irish internationals aren't on RTE. The WRU don't have any say in the televising of regional games that take place in England.

Anyway any competion were teams will not be able to watch their team play away matches is not a better competion. Also the PRL have no right to sell exculive right to PRL teams in the UK, only in England. They can't tell the WRU, SRU and IRFU that they can't show away games for their teams as they are in the UK but its ok for the IRFU (ROI) and France and Italy can show home PRL games as they are not in the UK

That doesn't really make sense. The ERC have sold the make believe rights to something that doesn't exist. They will gain these rights if the PRL agree. The PRL have sold the make believe rights to something that doesn't exist. The PRL have these rights unless they give them away.


What will probably happen is that the PRL will open saying they will not extend the ERC agreement unless the right to sell TV rights stays with the home union (given to the PRL by the RFU). What I expect then is (assuming the French are on board), the English/French will propose other changes in the structure and then the proper negotiation will start. The PRL will probably come into the negotiation with some suggested figure from BT for the rest of the UK market. If those are good (which they must be) the PRL will use that to encourage the changes they want. They may even have values for the Anglo-French competition to entice the French. The PRL know the HEC is a good stable competition with plenty of interest. They will want to keep it over a more risky Anglo-French Cup.

I'm still interested to find out EXACTLY what the sold European rights are. It would make sense for it to be the clubs' home games (one report said games 'in England'), some wording suggests the UK rights for any English game (this isn't the PRL's to sell and would have to form the core of an agreement). I think the former is more likely

Thunor, you do appear to have overlooked one salient factor : the propensity of PRL to act today and think tomorrow.

Also there is another inherent danger - the formation of a loose pact with the innately Machiavellian French.

Are talking about anything specific? Or just blowing hot air?

Portnoy wrote:Also there is another inherent danger - the formation of a loose pact with the innately Machiavellian French.

To be fair, there is a not so good histroy of Anglo-french alliances.........

PRL's history (in association with RFU) is littered with peacemeal decisions - on P shares, ground requirements, promotion/relegation issues etc. Very little of which have ever been thought through and contingencies planned for situations which may arise. Would it, for instance, be a surprise if this year's promotion/relegation round is not smooth and unencumbered by dispute?

The French are well, just French and are likely to make a U-turn out of pure self-interest. So the PRL must be prepared to lie in a bed of their own making.

Aren't P shares and ground requirements both promotion/relegation issues? So you don't think they've thought through the promotion/relegation issues.

What the PRL have agreed with BT on television rights is perfectly acceptable.

They have bid for the rights to show something exclusively in the UK (this may be shorthand for England admittedly if the PRL only has rights for England - I don't know the details of their territory boundary - but if they have rights for Premiership for the UK, then I assume they do.) Besides if transmissions are by encrypted signal then the decryption card can be issued by postcode.

If people in Limerick want to watch London Irish v Munster then they'll have to watch it on a BT controlled or contracted platform e.g. PPV on Sky, NTL, etc.

For the return match, when Munster are playing London Irish then BT have the exclusive rights to relay and broadcast the signal of that game within the UK on their platform. The match might be filmed by another broadcaster or production company, but they control the rights as to how the signal is tranmitted and delivered within the UK. Within Ireland, there could be a separate agreement with say RTE, TV3 or TG4 to show the match there. BTs rights only extend to the territory of the UK.

Now if say Leicester were playing say Ulster, or Edinburgh or Cardiff, it could get more interesting, since both home and away matches would be in the UK.

For all that, BTs deal with PRL - on the European games - would only start to make financial sense, if BT got the whole kit and caboodle as Sky have done over the last decade or so.

Each union controls the TV rights for their home games regardless of which country you're talking about. The PRL control the rights for broadcasting their home games in UK, Ireland, France, Japan, USA, etc. So a union controls the rights to any rugby played in their country, not to broadcast any rugby in their country, if you see the difference.

So, either:

There's a communication issue and the PRL have only sold the rights to the English home games to BT (the only ones they own)

or

They've stipulated that any future European agreement will have to sell the TV rights to English away games to BT as well.

The second seems a bit strange and it's much much more likely that the first is true.

I expect when the English rock up to Dublin for the ERC chat they'll have at least rough numbers of what BT are willing to offer the other unions for their home games.


Also, Sky still hold the RFU rights and therefore have a draw for English rugby fans. If they're willing to offer a decent amount for the other union's home games they'll still get drawn from the English AND the Celtic unions. If the combined total is a decent amount then I imagine that would be the way they go. If the BT deal goes well the Sky deal with the RFU could not be renewed in 2015(?) if BT try to take that on as well.

HammerofThunor wrote:Each union controls the TV rights for their home games regardless of which country you're talking about. The PRL control the rights for broadcasting their home games in UK, Ireland, France, Japan, USA, etc. So a union controls the rights to any rugby played in their country, not to broadcast any rugby in their country, if you see the difference.

So, either:

There's a communication issue and the PRL have only sold the rights to the English home games to BT (the only ones they own)

or

They've stipulated that any future European agreement will have to sell the TV rights to English away games to BT as well.

The second seems a bit strange and it's much much more likely that the first is true.

I expect when the English rock up to Dublin for the ERC chat they'll have at least rough numbers of what BT are willing to offer the other unions for their home games.


Also, Sky still hold the RFU rights and therefore have a draw for English rugby fans. If they're willing to offer a decent amount for the other union's home games they'll still get drawn from the English AND the Celtic unions. If the combined total is a decent amount then I imagine that would be the way they go. If the BT deal goes well the Sky deal with the RFU could not be renewed in 2015(?) if BT try to take that on as well.

Finally, we agree. That's what I've been getting at all along. The seeming strangeness of going to a negotiating table with a demand that looks on paper like an arrogant one, an unreasonable one, an illogical one and one that might get laughed at. "You [PRL] demand that we hand over our rights to the company you've already sold your rights too?" It would be strange indeed if that was the opening gambit..

Actually, it's "if you want us in the competition then you'll have to sell your rights to BT for [this amount], which will be split between us all as usual". I didn't say anything about it being arrogant, unreasonable, or illogical. I just think it's strange. Why not just 'sell' the rights for all of the games pre-emtively?

I understand the benefit for us fans, all the English games would be on one subscriber. But what's the benefit for the PRL or BT? That's why I think it's a bit strange.

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually, it's "if you want us in the competition then you'll have to sell your rights to BT for [this amount], which will be split between us all as usual". I didn't say anything about it being arrogant, unreasonable, or illogical. I just think it's strange. Why not just 'sell' the rights for all of the games pre-emtively?

I understand the benefit for us fans, all the English games would be on one subscriber. But what's the benefit for the PRL or BT? That's why I think it's a bit strange.

Oh come on Hammer - you know how that looks to outsiders. The strangeness is the bluster without the authority, the attitude that we'll call the shots or this competition is going down. It's saying, "you don't want to lose us so you'll agree".

Now I know every negotiation begins with bluster but we're commenting on that bluster. And as it stands, it's designed to put noses out of joint - it's designed to say "We're coming to this meeting in an bullish and defiant mood". Grand...I'm sure they'll be met with equal emotion.

Some strange views on here.

The French clubs have a lot in common with the English ones, and they have adopted a similar attitude to the English in the negotiations to date. It would be surprising if they now turned their backs on the English and in order to play sides they see as having an unfair advantage in a competition which will have lost English TV audiences and media attention (sponsors wouldn't be impressed).

All the PRL have done is exactly what they are entitled to - sell the rights to AP sides home games in the new European tournament. They will now approach other European sides and authorities and see if they can reach a mutually acceptable agreement about playing in that tournament.

BT appear highly ambitious and almost certainly hope that the new competition doesn't just involve the French but also encompasses some of the other big sides in Europe. If that doesn't work then presumably it will be an Anglo-French thing, although you could see the attraction to SA owners of playing English and French sides on a regular basis. What isn't going to happen is a simple roll over of the HEC.

There's no way the RFU are going to take punative action against the AP sides a few years before the WC is held here. Similarly, bodies like the IRB and ERC do not have unlimited powers to punish the AP clubs. The latter are businesses, they have rights and I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to turn to the law if someone attempted to impose an arbitrary punishment.

I wonder if the presentation will actually be any good? Sky for all their faults get the job done and supple the mid week Rugby Club while ESPN are probably the best rugby punditry team going.

If BT choose their presenters/pundits/commentators badly then there could be some real damage to the viewing figures.

Think PRL have boxed themselves in here ERC might say OK walk then. That then comes down to what the French decide; as noted previously they are not the most reliable partners. I await the outcome with interest.

Gut feel is bye bye PRL.

DaveM wrote:

There's no way the RFU are going to take punative action against the AP sides a few years before the WC is held here. Similarly, bodies like the IRB and ERC do not have unlimited powers to punish the AP clubs. The latter are businesses, they have rights and I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to turn to the law if someone attempted to impose an arbitrary punishment.

They're all businesses, and they all can turn to the law. Again..it's the 'we're right and will have our way' attitude. That's the strange bit.
The PRL might turn to the law, indeed they might if anger gets the better of all around the ERC table but I'm sure they'd be met there with lawyers from other camps. Law is law...PRL might eventually win something that had to go to court..but then again, they might also lose. They are the only ones at present bound by their contract with their communications company of choice.

The use of law I'm talking about is if anyone tries to punish the AP sides for signing this deal - say by banning their English players from representing England. There's would be no need for Rabo sides to seek legal redress, as nobody is suggesting any similar measures.

There's no 'we're right, and we're having our way', it's 'we have a right to sell our TV rights and to decide which compeition we want to play in (other European sides have a similar right)'.

If English and Rabo clubs can't reach agreement to play each other then they won't play each other. Life will go on, and it really won't matter what what's left of the ERC think.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually, it's "if you want us in the competition then you'll have to sell your rights to BT for [this amount], which will be split between us all as usual". I didn't say anything about it being arrogant, unreasonable, or illogical. I just think it's strange. Why not just 'sell' the rights for all of the games pre-emtively?

I understand the benefit for us fans, all the English games would be on one subscriber. But what's the benefit for the PRL or BT? That's why I think it's a bit strange.

Oh come on Hammer - you know how that looks to outsiders. The strangeness is the bluster without the authority, the attitude that we'll call the shots or this competition is going down. It's saying, "you don't want to lose us so you'll agree".

Now I know every negotiation begins with bluster but we're commenting on that bluster. And as it stands, it's designed to put noses out of joint - it's designed to say "We're coming to this meeting in an bullish and defiant mood". Grand...I'm sure they'll be met with equal emotion.

The strangeness is only there if they've made agreement for games not based in England (so not just their home games). I don't think they have done that so no problem whatsoever. In fact it's what I was suggesting previous (although I said they should each sell their own rights and keep the money. The PRL have sold their rights and are going to share it).

Another angle, BT do appear to mean business....and perhaps Sky have blown it....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9539604/Sky-fighting-hard-to-stop-the-sky-from-falling-in-following-BTs-move-into-rugby-rights.html

DaveM wrote:The use of law I'm talking about is if anyone tries to punish the AP sides for signing this deal - say by banning their English players from representing England. There's would be no need for Rabo sides to seek legal redress, as nobody is suggesting any similar measures.

There's no 'we're right, and we're having our way', it's 'we have a right to sell our TV rights and to decide which compeition we want to play in (other European sides have a similar right)'.

If English and Rabo clubs can't reach agreement to play each other then they won't play each other. Life will go on, and it really won't matter what what's left of the ERC think.

AP can walk away from European competition if they so choose if they don't get a deal that suits them. I'm sure that will be allowed without the law getting in the way. Namely, they'll be able to freely react and decide whether or not to join a European competition. In that scenario I don't think there'd be a drive to force them into a competition on terms they don't want to accept or to threaten English players as part of that threat. You're the one who mentioned the law and yet the only cause for it seems to be a situation that will not arise. AP will be free to decide on their future...but so will everyone else. It will be a negotiation not an ultimatum.

I've seen some reports saying the sold European rights are for games involving the premiership clubs. Others say games played in England. I think it's just the Premiership club home games.

Funny thing is I live in Hull and we don't have BT

SecretFly wrote:
AP can walk away from European competition if they so choose if they don't get a deal that suits them. I'm sure that will be allowed without the law getting in the way. Namely, they'll be able to freely react and decide whether or not to join a European competition. In that scenario I don't think there'd be a drive to force them into a competition on terms they don't want to accept or to threaten English players as part of that threat. You're the one who mentioned the law and yet the only cause for it seems to be a situation that will not arise. AP will be free to decide on their future...but so will everyone else. It will be a negotiation not an ultimatum.

I mentioned legal redress in response to some of the odd comments here suggesting that PRL sides could somehow be punished by the IRB or the RFU.

I completely agree with you, it will be a negotiation.

BT are an interesting wildcard - cash rich. hugely ambitious and publically committed to producing a new European competition. I wonder if they could make the Welsh Regions an offer they can't refuse - I think Welsh and English fans would enjoy that.