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

beshocked wrote:Brendan both those sides have earnt qualification by merit. Both came 5th in their respective tables.Exeter did quite well in the Amlin. Scarlets were runners up in their HC pool. No one can really begrudge their inclusion.

If sides show they are of sufficient quality to be in the HC then of course they deserve to be there. E.g. London Irish and Bath were poor last season. Consequently no HC for them.

Is earning a HC place by merit such a strange concept?

When you look at the group conacht were in its not like they were really poor. They gave up no TBP, they were close to beating glaws and only loss the first game to Quins in the last 15 mins as they did with the second game with Glaws. Yest they only one one game but they were compeditive, so by logic dersevred to be there. Bath were rubbish but that was down to injuries but they didn't perform at all in the league either. Connacht did.

By point on Exeter is they deserve to be there but people will say they only will win one game and give up at least 2 TBP which is worse then Connacht.

Connacht desrve to be in the HC as the fourth best Irish team and the only Irish team not to make it to the quarters last year.

SecretFly wrote:The Italians are the most toe-tappingnest, humdinginest, Riverdancingest, begorrah-and-begoshest, be-the-hokiest Celts on the planet - Fact!

That's just an observation that has come to me whilst reading through the posts.

Now for the serious stuff. Let me see how this thing is going down so far (a generalisation of course for expediency):

The English PRL want to rule the world.

The RFU didn't, or are pretending not to, know what the hell is going on.

The French are planning to burn a few truckloads of sheep in protest, but they're not sure what for yet

The Welsh wouldn't mind a tougher Pro12 (sacrificing automatic Scottish and Italian interests for the good of the league).

The Scots are keeping a dignified silence - for now

The Italians know what they want to say but they can make it sound good in English - they're still with their interpreters.

The Irish want no change, want Scottish and Italians to remain part of the deal by right and they DEMAND that ERC negotiations include the provision for seven more straight Irish HC wins or they pull out...

Close the thread! Everything is covered and explained above. No more discussion need,

Beshocked, Connacht were in a group last year that contained the eventual winners of the T14 and AP. That's also a tough group.

If posters want to reduce the net value of a team to a competition to the amount of games they won in the previous year then why should only Irish teams be held to that standard?

HERSH wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HERSH wrote:So the WRU, IRFU, SRU and the Italians are going to go and moan to the IRB about how unfair it is that these guys had the foresight to secure a big payout for selling their product and securing its future for years to come.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Hardly.

The PRL have likely sold something they didnt have the right to sell. I think thats called fraud? RFU are currently investigating.

I'm pretty sure that PRL would have made sure it's water tight before stirring up this Hornets nest.



I can see the Rabo spokesperson at the IRB committee meeting now.

Rabo spokes person:
"Please Sir can I have some more"

IRB:
“MORE!!!!”

Yeah like they did with the whole London Welsh Promotion issue and the current promotion criteria - despite the fact that the European Courts have infact rendered the criteria meaningless. I dont think they are half as smart as you give them credit for.

Brendan wrote:

beshocked wrote:Brendan both those sides have earnt qualification by merit. Both came 5th in their respective tables.Exeter did quite well in the Amlin. Scarlets were runners up in their HC pool. No one can really begrudge their inclusion.

If sides show they are of sufficient quality to be in the HC then of course they deserve to be there. E.g. London Irish and Bath were poor last season. Consequently no HC for them.

Is earning a HC place by merit such a strange concept?

When you look at the group conacht were in its not like they were really poor. They gave up no TBP, they were close to beating glaws and only loss the first game to Quins in the last 15 mins as they did with the second game with Glaws. Yest they only one one game but they were compeditive, so by logic dersevred to be there. Bath were rubbish but that was down to injuries but they didn't perform at all in the league either. Connacht did.

By point on Exeter is they deserve to be there but people will say they only will win one game and give up at least 2 TBP which is worse then Connacht.

Connacht desrve to be in the HC as the fourth best Irish team and the only Irish team not to make it to the quarters last year.

1 win in 6 games is awful. When my team only won one. I was really annoyed and thought we did rubbish. 1 win is not competitive. Connacht came 8th in the league. That's not performing well.

Exeter have a tougher group than Connacht did.

Brendan Connacht have never been in the top 6 in the Pro12. Their Amlin record is pretty poor compared to most other sides let alone the HC.


Tight losses are still losses. Close wins are still wins. The win against Quins was close yet all you talk about is Connacht winning.

I agree Welshmushroom this guy McCafferty really doesn't come across as being the sharpest knife in the drawer, neither do the PRL as a whole. From the stories the media are carrying they are upsetting every other union in Europe, possibly even the French, the ERC and the IRB. They are trying to steam roller everyone into accepting their demands, as the Times described it they have chosen the 'nuclear option as their first port of call.

Tight losses are still losses. Close wins are still wins. The win against Quins was close yet all you talk about is Connacht winning.

Oxymoron alert.

Mickado wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:

Mickado wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Connacht beat Quins by 1 point in some of the worst conditions I’ve seen rugby played in They lost all of their other games and finished comfortably bottom of their group.

Why is the fact that they won this one game relevant to current debate?

Presumably someone brought them up in the context of not being deserving of a HC place ahead of some AP teams.

But what does one game prove either way?

One game that changed the entire complexion of the knockout stages of the tournament. Had Connacht lost the game Quins would have got a home QF and Toulouse would have been out. The point is that some posters here are saying that Connacht have no right to be a part of the HC, and yet in thier first and only year they had a material affect on the shape of the tournament.

So what if they only won one game, in the 2010/2011 season Racing Metro qualified for the tournament for the first time by dint of Toulouse winning it the previous year (as Connacht did last year), they had pretty much no impact on the tournament as a whole, but if the same set of circumstances occured and they found themselves back in the cup, nobody would complain. Why is that? For the record, in the same group Saracens only won one game, maybe they should be banned from the competition?

You’re ascribing all of that to Connacht? Not all of the other games in the group?

I’m not saying Connacht don’t deserve to be in the competition ( I believe they should be) all I’m saying is one game doesn’t make them world beaters or prove the supremacy of their league, as I read mentioned elsewhere.

Toadfish wrote:

Brendan wrote:The three problems i see is

1. All members of the ERC voted for the ERC to sell rights to 2018 thus giving ERC the rights to do it. The PRL haven't said the ERC are wrong which implies they are not. Also it seems like the PRL want to stay under the ERC (talking about HC) so gave away any right they have to sell them.

2. Each union owns the right to show the competion not just to show their teams. As a result the PRL can only sell the rights for showing the ERC competitions in England. It just so happens that the RFU, IRFU, SRU and WRU sell the uk rights together. All Unions can show the knock out games its not like once you teams are out the country can't show any more of the competition.

3. The PRL don't have the rights to sell anything beyond 2015/2016 as the RFU haven't given them permission unlike the ERC member gave to the ERC

4. The french would love nothing more then to hang the english out to dry and the French Union will not give in to their clubs.

No one has come back about the Rabos playing more Internationals would that make them the more money lost from the HC.

Ok on point 1 surely the moment that notice was handed in this became a moot point. How can they agree to sell the rights to a competition they won't be participating in? Apparently PRL copied in SKY when they gave their notice to make this clear.

On point 3 this is being checked and will come down to a wording thing as to did they have the rights to sell an agreement up until that point in time or did they have an agreement to sell rights up until that point in time. The worse thing that will happen (in my opinion) would be a light rap on the nuckles for the PRL and a ratification of the agreement from the RFU as it is in the RFU's interests to keep the PRL happy.

Point 4 might be true but there is nothing to indicate this and seems to just be wishful thinking from some. Even if the AP ends up with no European competition on the face of it they look ok financialy and it might even benefit the players and England for their to be less fixtures.

You didn't deal with point 2 and that is the problem. The RFU who gave the rights to the PRL only have the rights to show the competion in Engalnd not to have excluse rights to all English teams playing at home in the ERC competions.

The french could have watched Cardiff v Irish last year as the French sold the rights to the competion not just for french teams.

The ERc did have the rights to sell the rights as all members including the PRL gave the ok for it. So they didn't sell something they were entitiled to.

Brendan wrote:

The ERc did have the rights to sell the rights as all embers including the PRL gave the ok for it. So they didn't sell something they were entitiled to.

They're not embers yet...but they will be if they lose this fight.

Mickado wrote:Beshocked, Connacht were in a group last year that contained the eventual winners of the T14 and AP. That's also a tough group.

If posters want to reduce the net value of a team to a competition to the amount of games they won in the previous year then why should only Irish teams be held to that standard?

Mickado Connacht are a poor side. You only need to look at how few games they win. You guys are deluded if you think otherwise. I get the feeling you guys are unfortunately.

Toadfish wrote:I am no fan at all of BT but to me the issue here lies with them not the PRL. Seems to me that they let someone talk to the press who was a little too high on pot.

This kind of thing should happen more often. Post-match interviews, too.

geoff998rugby wrote:Would Connacht beenfit from playing in the Amlin - of course they would but then again so would the likes of Bath, Gloucester, London Irish, Sale, Exeter etc etc - basically most of the underachieving teams in the Aviva.

Lets be honest only Leicester, Saracens, Saints have delivered anything of substance in the HC in recents years - the rest have struggled

You'll be needing to correct that

Brendan wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

Brendan wrote:The three problems i see is

1. All members of the ERC voted for the ERC to sell rights to 2018 thus giving ERC the rights to do it. The PRL haven't said the ERC are wrong which implies they are not. Also it seems like the PRL want to stay under the ERC (talking about HC) so gave away any right they have to sell them.

2. Each union owns the right to show the competion not just to show their teams. As a result the PRL can only sell the rights for showing the ERC competitions in England. It just so happens that the RFU, IRFU, SRU and WRU sell the uk rights together. All Unions can show the knock out games its not like once you teams are out the country can't show any more of the competition.

3. The PRL don't have the rights to sell anything beyond 2015/2016 as the RFU haven't given them permission unlike the ERC member gave to the ERC

4. The french would love nothing more then to hang the english out to dry and the French Union will not give in to their clubs.

No one has come back about the Rabos playing more Internationals would that make them the more money lost from the HC.

Ok on point 1 surely the moment that notice was handed in this became a moot point. How can they agree to sell the rights to a competition they won't be participating in? Apparently PRL copied in SKY when they gave their notice to make this clear.

On point 3 this is being checked and will come down to a wording thing as to did they have the rights to sell an agreement up until that point in time or did they have an agreement to sell rights up until that point in time. The worse thing that will happen (in my opinion) would be a light rap on the nuckles for the PRL and a ratification of the agreement from the RFU as it is in the RFU's interests to keep the PRL happy.

Point 4 might be true but there is nothing to indicate this and seems to just be wishful thinking from some. Even if the AP ends up with no European competition on the face of it they look ok financialy and it might even benefit the players and England for their to be less fixtures.

You didn't deal with point 2 and that is the problem. The RFU who gave the rights to the PRL only have the rights to show the competion in Engalnd not to have excluse rights to all English teams playing at home in the ERC competions.

The french could have watched Cardiff v Irish last year as the French sold the rights to the competion not just for french teams.

The ERc did have the rights to sell the rights as all embers including the PRL gave the ok for it. So they didn't sell something they were entitiled to.

Point 2 is the one which the PRL will want to renegotiate with all parties next week. Their sales pitch will be - look how much money we can make, want some of it?

Brendan wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

Brendan wrote:The three problems i see is

1. All members of the ERC voted for the ERC to sell rights to 2018 thus giving ERC the rights to do it. The PRL haven't said the ERC are wrong which implies they are not. Also it seems like the PRL want to stay under the ERC (talking about HC) so gave away any right they have to sell them.

2. Each union owns the right to show the competion not just to show their teams. As a result the PRL can only sell the rights for showing the ERC competitions in England. It just so happens that the RFU, IRFU, SRU and WRU sell the uk rights together. All Unions can show the knock out games its not like once you teams are out the country can't show any more of the competition.

3. The PRL don't have the rights to sell anything beyond 2015/2016 as the RFU haven't given them permission unlike the ERC member gave to the ERC

4. The french would love nothing more then to hang the english out to dry and the French Union will not give in to their clubs.

No one has come back about the Rabos playing more Internationals would that make them the more money lost from the HC.

Ok on point 1 surely the moment that notice was handed in this became a moot point. How can they agree to sell the rights to a competition they won't be participating in? Apparently PRL copied in SKY when they gave their notice to make this clear.

On point 3 this is being checked and will come down to a wording thing as to did they have the rights to sell an agreement up until that point in time or did they have an agreement to sell rights up until that point in time. The worse thing that will happen (in my opinion) would be a light rap on the nuckles for the PRL and a ratification of the agreement from the RFU as it is in the RFU's interests to keep the PRL happy.

Point 4 might be true but there is nothing to indicate this and seems to just be wishful thinking from some. Even if the AP ends up with no European competition on the face of it they look ok financialy and it might even benefit the players and England for their to be less fixtures.

You didn't deal with point 2 and that is the problem. The RFU who gave the rights to the PRL only have the rights to show the competion in Engalnd not to have excluse rights to all English teams playing at home in the ERC competions.

The french could have watched Cardiff v Irish last year as the French sold the rights to the competion not just for french teams.

The ERc did have the rights to sell the rights as all embers including the PRL gave the ok for it. So they didn't sell something they were entitiled to.

I missed this as I'd commented in another post. The PRL has sold the rights to broadcast it's home games in future European competitions which it has every right to do. They have served notice to the ERC and as such are not part of it for the period they have sold. For them to be a part of a European competition in the future they will have to sign a new agreement and if they enter one it will be on the understanding that they have already sold their own broadcasting rights.

beshocked wrote:

Mickado wrote:Beshocked, Connacht were in a group last year that contained the eventual winners of the T14 and AP. That's also a tough group.

If posters want to reduce the net value of a team to a competition to the amount of games they won in the previous year then why should only Irish teams be held to that standard?

Mickado Connacht are a poor side. You only need to look at how few games they win. You guys are deluded if you think otherwise. I get the feeling you guys are unfortunately.

And a lot of folks across the water are deluded if they think six AP sides are always up to the standard required for entry. The evidence suggests this is rarely the case. So maybe we should say that both France and England should reduce their spots by one each...Scotland and Italy can take one apiece, then that frees up Pro12 to work on a six spot placement in the HC from performances in the league only.

Everyone's happy.

Artful_Dodger wrote:I agree Welshmushroom this guy McCafferty really doesn't come across as being the sharpest knife in the drawer, neither do the PRL as a whole. From the stories the media are carrying they are upsetting every other union in Europe, possibly even the French, the ERC and the IRB. They are trying to steam roller everyone into accepting their demands, as the Times described it they have chosen the 'nuclear option as their first port of call.

Which is fine if it works. But you cant tell me there are not some very annoyed people at the RFU right about now.

Whats interesting as well is I fail to see how Wales can even participate in a new Euro tournament. The WRU have never negotiated with clubs in any capacity. They do all their dialogue through the various Union Boards. This upset McCafferty not to long ago as the WRU wouldnt come to the table on player release payments.

I'd rather be in a group with Bath than Connacht personally.....

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Mickado wrote:Beshocked, Connacht were in a group last year that contained the eventual winners of the T14 and AP. That's also a tough group.

If posters want to reduce the net value of a team to a competition to the amount of games they won in the previous year then why should only Irish teams be held to that standard?

Mickado Connacht are a poor side. You only need to look at how few games they win. You guys are deluded if you think otherwise. I get the feeling you guys are unfortunately.

And a lot of folks across the water are deluded if they think six AP sides are always up to the standard required for entry. The evidence suggests this is rarely the case. So maybe we should say that both France and England should reduce their spots by one each...Scotland and Italy can take one apiece, then that frees up Pro12 to work on a six spot placement in the HC from performances in the league only.

Everyone's happy.

Secretfly I would agree that not all English sides perform well in the HC but all those in it are stronger than the likes of Zebre and Connacht plus they get there by merit.

English sides do very well in the Amlin. I would say 5 of the 6 will be competitive this season in the HC excluding Sale.

16 teams is an interesting thought. I prefer 20 though with a 8,6,6 split.

beshocked wrote:

Mickado wrote:Beshocked, Connacht were in a group last year that contained the eventual winners of the T14 and AP. That's also a tough group.

If posters want to reduce the net value of a team to a competition to the amount of games they won in the previous year then why should only Irish teams be held to that standard?

Mickado Connacht are a poor side. You only need to look at how few games they win. You guys are deluded if you think otherwise. I get the feeling you guys are unfortunately.

They finished the league with 1 win less than Gloucester last year and the in the HC they won as many games as Montpellier, Castres, London Irish and Treviso. Who presumably all are undeserving of their place in the HC too.

Beshocked fair point re Exeter I should not have included them.

My point about the others stands though and this is what gets me. People having a pop at Connaught when a number of English teams also have poor records. Connacught are not a very good side but neither are, at least, half the Aviva.

Hersh I reckon the reason they do badly is simple - they are not good enough.

Connaught reached the SF of the Amlin a couple of years back.
They will win 3 games in the group this year I reckon - if they could snatch a 4th who knows

I think the focus of HEC qualification shouldn't go to the welsh regions as there is, at least, some qualification to it. The bottom placed region goes in to the Amlin and considering there's 4 teams i consider this fair.

The fact both scottish and italian teams qualify without doing anything for it, that's another question. It's not right that both qualify and you can even argue that the Italian teams shouldn't even be in the HEC automatically at all.

Unless the focus is changed to league representation from country representation, then this will always be the problem.

beshocked wrote:

Mickado wrote:Beshocked, Connacht were in a group last year that contained the eventual winners of the T14 and AP. That's also a tough group.

If posters want to reduce the net value of a team to a competition to the amount of games they won in the previous year then why should only Irish teams be held to that standard?

Mickado Connacht are a poor side. You only need to look at how few games they win. You guys are deluded if you think otherwise. I get the feeling you guys are unfortunately.

Yes we get it. Connacht are rubbish. Not like English Rugby isnt littered with a shed loads of rubbish sides. Worcester are turning into a retirement home. Saracens are a who's who of South Africa "B" but at least they are a good side (if a little negative). Sale, London Welsh, London Irish are all dire sides. To be fair Gloucester aint no great shakes either. I could go on but dont be under any illusions that somehow the product you have is superior to ours.

At best you looking at joint 2nd league behind the French and tied with the Rabbo. Without this money being secured English rugby will come under increased pressure (ironically from the French) and lose their top stars

[quote/]

I missed this as I'd commented in another post. The PRL has sold the rights to broadcast it's home games in future European competitions which it has every right to do. They have served notice to the ERC and as such are not part of it for the period they have sold. For them to be a part of a European competition in the future they will have to sign a new agreement and if they enter one it will be on the understanding that they have already sold their own broadcasting rights.[/quote]

The problem is that in a euro competion do they have the rights to sell exclusive rights for the english teams or just the rights to sell the competition in England. There is a difference.

What the PRL are saying is look at how much money we have but if you want to see your teams play english teams in England you will have to but those rights off of BT from the money we are giving you.

The WRu can sell the competition rights to BBC wales if the want which would include all english teams but only could be procast in Wales.

Either the PRL want to redo the ERC competions (in which case they have already agreed to sell the rights through the ERC) or they want a new competition run by BT which is against IRB rules according to some posts as inter country competitions need IRB sanction or who they have delegated it to eg SANZAR and ERC

Mickado London Irish aren't in the HC. Montpellier and Castres finished in the top 6 in the Top 14 hence qualifying by merit.

1 win less than 9th placed Gloucester who didn't qualify for the HC I might add.

Sorry I don't see your point.


Geoff that HC cup group is a joke. Of course Connacht should get 2 wins. Zebre is all but guaranteed unless they have a remarkable turn around.

The English sides don't have as poor records as Connacht. Their ACC records in particular are vastly superior.

Connacht should really build on their ACC semi result by staying in that competition. I have seen nothing to suggest they are suitable for the HC.

McCafferty wants to rejig the entire rugby union world. That's what he wants. This is only the first salvo in that war. The HC/or lack of it is his toe-dipping experiment... nothing more. He's feeling things out. Seeing where alliance might come from.

Eventually, he wants privately run clubs and their overseeing organisations (not just in England but across the world) to determine where rugby goes, where the best players go, who controls players, what can be payed to players etc. He wants club rugby to run itself from boardrooms, unhindered by the nuisance calls from RFU, IRFU, WRU, SARU, IRB etc.

He wants dominance - a climate where private clubs and domestic Leagues call the shots that will not only dicate where clubs themselvs play and who they choose to play against but also to assert actual control over International itself; .. making the idea of International rugby, and the Unions involved, subservient to the great needs and requirements of worldwide and wealthy club brands. He wants a situation where Union have to come begging for the release of players rather than coming to demand releases. He's attempting to curtail the power of the Unions.

Welshmushroom wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Mickado wrote:Beshocked, Connacht were in a group last year that contained the eventual winners of the T14 and AP. That's also a tough group.

If posters want to reduce the net value of a team to a competition to the amount of games they won in the previous year then why should only Irish teams be held to that standard?

Mickado Connacht are a poor side. You only need to look at how few games they win. You guys are deluded if you think otherwise. I get the feeling you guys are unfortunately.

Yes we get it. Connacht are rubbish. Not like English Rugby isnt littered with a shed loads of rubbish sides. Worcester are turning into a retirement home. Saracens are a who's who of South Africa "B" but at least they are a good side (if a little negative). Sale, London Welsh, London Irish are all dire sides. To be fair Gloucester aint no great shakes either. I could go on but dont be under any illusions that somehow the product you have is superior to ours.

At best you looking at joint 2nd league behind the French and tied with the Rabbo. Without this money being secured English rugby will come under increased pressure (ironically from the French) and lose their top stars

WelshMushroom the problem is that Connacht is in the Heineken Cup undeservedly.

Worcester,London Welsh,London Irish and Gloucester are not. I admit Sale are not a good side but they came 6th in the AP and qualified by merit.

Saracens with their South Africa "B" can play a full backline with England international honours.

beshocked wrote:Mickado London Irish aren't in the HC. Montpellier and Castres finished in the top 6 in the Top 14 hence qualifying by merit.

1 win less than 9th placed Gloucester who didn't qualify for the HC I might add.

Sorry I don't see your point.


Geoff that HC cup group is a joke. Of course Connacht should get 2 wins. Zebre is all but guaranteed unless they have a remarkable turn around.

The English sides don't have as poor records as Connacht. Their ACC records in particular are vastly superior.

Connacht should really build on their ACC semi result by staying in that competition. I have seen nothing to suggest they are suitable for the HC.

Comparing Connacht now and before 4 years ago is like comparing Sarries with before the investment.
Connacht are more then capable of competiting in the Amlin and their last three years since they have got investment is

2010 Knocked out by Toulon in amlin semi (that is Toulon money bags)
2011 Finished second in group to Quinns (eventual winners)
2012 Came last in a group with Aviva and T14 top league finish and playoff winners. Gave up no TBP and where within a win of 3 of the five games they lost with 15 mins to go.

How can you say they don't deserve the HC. Saints gave up 2 TBPs on their own ground what does that say about them.

Connacht also finished well in the league so also deserve to be there on merit when you see how well teams they finished above in the league did in the HC and deserve to be there.

beshocked wrote:Mickado London Irish aren't in the HC. Montpellier and Castres finished in the top 6 in the Top 14 hence qualifying by merit.

1 win less than 9th placed Gloucester who didn't qualify for the HC I might add.

Sorry I don't see your point.


Geoff that HC cup group is a joke. Of course Connacht should get 2 wins. Zebre is all but guaranteed unless they have a remarkable turn around.

The English sides don't have as poor records as Connacht. Their ACC records in particular are vastly superior.

Connacht should really build on their ACC semi result by staying in that competition. I have seen nothing to suggest they are suitable for the HC.

So if an English team HAD won the HC last year, would London Irish be deserving of a place?

beshocked wrote:
WelshMushroom the problem is that Connacht is in the Heineken Cup undeservedly.

Worcester,London Welsh,London Irish and Gloucester are not. I admit Sale are not a good side but they came 6th in the AP and qualified by merit.

How do you work that out? Leinster won the cup so Ireland are entitled to another slot. The same would be true if an English side won, they would get a 7th side.

Connacht earned their spot by being the 4th best Irish side..the fact that Ireland ...er...only have 4 sides is neither here nor there.

I actually think the PLC have done something which good improve the H-cup

The ERC sell the H-cup to the TV companies as a package for all the unions. What has happened is the PLC and I think the French clubs have complained that the ERC are not getting as much money from Sky as they could be and are selling it cheap.

The PLC have prob highlighted this, and it will be intresting to see how much money the PLC got for European games compared to the Sky deal the ERC claim to have.

Now I suspect that it Rabo sold TV rights and England and France sold thier TV as seperate deals the total would be less than selling them all together, However the ERC have been selling them for less than there potentional.

I'll say a deal will be made PLC sold Englands rights, France and rabo's will sell theirs collectivally, H-cup will continue, and When TV deals expire they will be sold colectivlly again but with more imput from the PLC and French equlivent) to get the best deal possible.

Think this is just a step to force the ERC to do a better more professional job in selling the TV rights, and highlights the bad job they were doing.

If thats the case and in future TV rights are sold as a package with the PLC and French clubs making sure it is the best deal available, then it may work out better for the H-cup.

If they insist on selling seperate in future then his may be when the H-cup ends.

Brendan wrote:[quote/]

I missed this as I'd commented in another post. The PRL has sold the rights to broadcast it's home games in future European competitions which it has every right to do. They have served notice to the ERC and as such are not part of it for the period they have sold. For them to be a part of a European competition in the future they will have to sign a new agreement and if they enter one it will be on the understanding that they have already sold their own broadcasting rights.

The problem is that in a euro competion do they have the rights to sell exclusive rights for the english teams or just the rights to sell the competition in England. There is a difference.

What the PRL are saying is look at how much money we have but if you want to see your teams play english teams in England you will have to but those rights off of BT from the money we are giving you.

The WRu can sell the competition rights to BBC wales if the want which would include all english teams but only could be procast in Wales.

Either the PRL want to redo the ERC competions (in which case they have already agreed to sell the rights through the ERC) or they want a new competition run by BT which is against IRB rules according to some posts as inter country competitions need IRB sanction or who they have delegated it to eg SANZAR and ERC[/quote]

Might be just my interpretation but to me it seems blindingly obvious that an entity would have the right sell the rights to it's own product in it's own market? It would have been the same in the last ERC agreement, the only difference being that all the unions involved signed over their right to negotiate the deal to the ERC. There is no ERC agreement covering the period in question as the PRL are not a part of it?

Kingshu wrote:I actually think the PLC have done something which good improve the H-cup

The ERC sell the H-cup to the TV companies as a package for all the unions. What has happened is the PLC and I think the French clubs have complained that the ERC are not getting as much money from Sky as they could be and are selling it cheap.

The PLC have prob highlighted this, and it will be intresting to see how much money the PLC got for European games compared to the Sky deal the ERC claim to have.

Now I suspect that it Rabo sold TV rights and England and France sold thier TV as seperate deals the total would be less than selling them all together, However the ERC have been selling them for less than there potentional.

I'll say a deal will be made PLC sold Englands rights, France and rabo's will sell theirs collectivally, H-cup will continue, and When TV deals expire they will be sold colectivlly again but with more imput from the PLC and French equlivent) to get the best deal possible.

Think this is just a step to force the ERC to do a better more professional job in selling the TV rights, and highlights the bad job they were doing.

If thats the case and in future TV rights are sold as a package with the PLC and French clubs making sure it is the best deal available, then it may work out better for the H-cup.

If they insist on selling seperate in future then his may be when the H-cup ends.

But they got a good deal because they sold it so you can only see English games in the Uk on BT thus selling the IRFU (part), SRU and WRU part of the deal. The SRU can't now sell the english part of the competition to anyone which is their right.

I do think we all agree we don't want a competition run by a media company.

Brendan except for a HC semi in 2007-8 yes you are generally right.

Saracens convincingly beat Toulon in the pool stages that year but no one remembers -http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/6990414/Saracens-28-Toulon-9-match-report.html

It's not a big deal. I would say we did better than Connacht in the Amlin despite not getting out of the pool. We won 5 matches, beat Castres x2 and Toulon once yet failed to qualify for the quarter finals.

Most teams would have got to an Amlin semi with Connacht's group. They didn't have two HC quality sides in their group.

8th is not good unless you believe in supporting mediocrity.

Mickado no not really.

I have been saying I want 8,6,6 split.

I don't agree in clubs piggybacking others.

Rodders it's called hanging on the coat tails.

Meanwhile ERC sticks to its guns
http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18589.php

ERC questions proposed Premiership Rugby TV deal
12 September 2012 17:42pm
No ALT tag specified
Following a media announcement today (12 September), ERC has raised questions over a purported deal by Premiership Rugby to sell the UK broadcast rights to European club rugby tournaments.
While awaiting further information regarding Premiership Rugby's proposed agreement with BT, the ERC Board, which met in Dublin today, believes that any such agreement would be in breach both of IRB regulations and of a mandate from the ERC Board itself.

European club rugby's six participant Unions have granted the authority to sell broadcast rights to its tournaments solely to ERC.

It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision.

ERC remains determined to honour its own commercial commitments and to continue its work to further develop the European club game.

Notes

All ERC stakeholders are scheduled to convene in Dublin on Tuesday, 18 September to begin the formulation of a new Shareholder Agreement for the 2014/15 season and beyond.

[ed followed by list of directors]

Unsurpisingly I know, but what interests me is "It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

I wonder what nature this reported agreement took. An agreement in principle, in fact or what? Clearly a £152m deal would take more than a couple of months to cobble together. Presumably the legal beagles from both PRL and BT would have been over any proposed contract like a rash.

Maybe PRL were being duplicitous. Maybe ERC are. I'd love to see if there was a formal vote as if this does turn really ugly and litigious, then one party or the other will have egg on its face.

Meanwhile BSkyB so far as I can find remain uncharacteristically silent on the matter. But maybe they find themselves dumbstruck after the Levenson Inquiry, the incompetence of Murdoch Jnr (who no doubt will get another thick ear off his dad) and the burgeoning backlog of pending court cases. (Gord bless 'em).

beshocked wrote:
8th is not good unless you believe in supporting mediocrity.
Mickado no not really.

I have been saying I want 8,6,6 split.

I don't agree in clubs piggybacking others.

Rodders it's called hanging on the coat tails.

Haven't you contradicted yourself here?

Portnoy wrote:Meanwhile ERC sticks to its guns
http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18589.php

ERC questions proposed Premiership Rugby TV deal
12 September 2012 17:42pm
No ALT tag specified
Following a media announcement today (12 September), ERC has raised questions over a purported deal by Premiership Rugby to sell the UK broadcast rights to European club rugby tournaments.
While awaiting further information regarding Premiership Rugby's proposed agreement with BT, the ERC Board, which met in Dublin today, believes that any such agreement would be in breach both of IRB regulations and of a mandate from the ERC Board itself.

European club rugby's six participant Unions have granted the authority to sell broadcast rights to its tournaments solely to ERC.

It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision.

ERC remains determined to honour its own commercial commitments and to continue its work to further develop the European club game.

Notes

All ERC stakeholders are scheduled to convene in Dublin on Tuesday, 18 September to begin the formulation of a new Shareholder Agreement for the 2014/15 season and beyond.

[ed followed by list of directors]

Unsurpisingly I know, but what interests me is "It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

I wonder what nature this reported agreement took. An agreement in principle, in fact or what? Clearly a £152m deal would take more than a couple of months to cobble together. Presumably the legal beagles from both PRL and BT would have been over any proposed contract like a rash.

Maybe PRL were being duplicitous. Maybe ERC are. I'd love to see if there was a formal vote as if this does turn really ugly and litigious, then one party or the other will have egg on its face.

Meanwhile BSkyB so far as I can find remain uncharacteristically silent on the matter. But maybe they find themselves dumbstruck after the Levenson Inquiry, the incompetence of Murdoch Jnr (who no doubt will get another thick ear off his dad) and the burgeoning backlog of pending court cases. (Gord bless 'em).

And thats the problem the PRL can't have ERC competions that are regiged and then also sell rights that they agreed would be sold by the ERC.

If the vote was taken and everyone agreed then any ERC competition regardless how it is run will have the rights sold by ERC and not the unions or their nominated body.

Either PRL want to be in a euro competition after 2014 run by the ERC or they do not.

And The RFu adds its tuppencewuth RFU wades into European row
http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/story/169786.html

Providing a seemingly less-than-committed stance viv-á-vis PRL.

I did say earlier that the PRL has a propensity to act today and think tomorrow...

And the French?

And while figures like Saracens chairman Nigel Wray have praised the new television deal and also claimed that the Heineken Cup structure must change, their counterparts in the LNR claim that the announcement of the new television deal ahead of next weekend's meeting is untimely.

"It is inappropriate to give news about TV rights in Europe," vice-president of the LNR Patrick Wolff said. "I was disappointed. It is not appropriate that this is to be put on the agenda. We do not know for sure if ERC or the clubs or another organisation owns these rights.

"Of course I understand that this is the usual pressure exerted before negotiations but I was sorry to see financial issues being discussed before we talk about how the competition needs to be improved. We don't want to start all this by having lawyers there arguing about TV rights. We must talk first about the sport."

This thing about automatic qualification needs examining.

Currently, all six countries/unions are guaranteed spots in the H Cup. Fact. No one disputes this.

The proposed changes from PRL/LNR are that only England and France would have guaranteed spots. Fact. No one can dispute this.

In effect, the proposed changes would shift from country allocation to league allocation.

The number of teams participating should be reduced from 24 to 20.

The reduction should come only from countries in the Pro 12 league.

This would be achieved by changing to a Top 6 qualification in the Pro 12.

The only public comments from any of the four unions involved in Pro 12 is that they acknowledge there has to be some change. They have not said they refuse to negotiate or change -'this is propaganda by other vested interests.

It is foolish to assume that the Pro 12 unions will act and speak as one. They won't. Each have different concerns, and different agendas relevant to their own situation.

beshocked wrote:

I have been saying I want 8,6,6 split.

I don't agree in clubs piggybacking others.

Rodders it's called hanging on the coat tails.

That's 20 teams. What about previous season winners?

Pot Hale wrote:

beshocked wrote:

I have been saying I want 8,6,6 split.

I don't agree in clubs piggybacking others.

Rodders it's called hanging on the coat tails.

That's 20 teams. What about previous season winners?

It's likely they'll qualify anyway.

You know one thing, I find it truly amazing how many armchair lawyers we have on 606 lol

nathan wrote:You know one thing, I find it truly amazing how many armchair lawyers we have on 606 lol

It might not be all that amazing to consider some of us might be real ones. Never believe too much in any nom de plume; that is to say - I could almost guarantee that Toadfish isn't one.... a toadfish, that is.

nathan wrote:You know one thing, I find it truly amazing how many armchair lawyers we have on 606 lol

I am probably one of them. Did law for college but only know a little but think I know alot.

As Rugby is for the "upper classes" do we have an legal expert that would give their opinion. It would be interesting to have them give their view as it all comes down to law

nathan wrote:You know one thing, I find it truly amazing how many armchair lawyers we have on 606 lol

Agree-ish. This is a forum though so you have to expect people to discuss and give their opinion (however well or poorly informed), and as the legalities are being questioned it's reasonable for people to give their views. I'd rather give an uneducated view and have someone in a better position to judge correct me, than remain in ignorance. Provided people understand the difference between something being their opinion and something being fact, I don't really have any issue.

Getting back to the debate...

Personally I'm struggling to see the issue here. ERC have sold the rights to any future tournament they organise, and PRL have sold the rights to any tournament they are involved in. I'd assume they are conditional, i.e. they only get paid if the tournaments go ahead. If so presumably all this means is that the English teams won't be involved in the Heineken Cup or one of the two is going to have to wiggle/buy their way out of the contract. I'd also assume that they need some kind of union approval but that this will come if/when something is agreed. It's not exactly a great starting point for negotiations but on the face of it both sides have jumped the gun and could end up looking a tad silly.

Somewhere back their in the thread someone mentioned that from a French perspective they don't really care as they could make more money having no European cup and increasing the TOP14 to a TOP16. It's not the easiest data to find (the last article I saw with figures was about 5/6 years ago) but back then English clubs were also making more a lot more money for domestic matches (more than double if I remember correctly). I appreciate it may have changed since, but I can't imagine they have closed a gap of that magnitude and suspect that the AP clubs would do better financially with a 14/15 team premiership than they would maintaining the status quo with the Heineken Cup. Just a thought, but no euro cup may be their goal as well.

A trained lawyer still only possesses an opinion. Nothing more. He has no more a express path to knowledge/correctness and fact than anybody else.

Why do I say this? Well, he always meets a lawyer in court - and their job is to disagree.

So let's forget the serious lawyers coming to ponder over our ruminations. No thanks - we'll handle ourselves. If there is one liar in court then it's guaranteed there's another - the guilty and his council.

Lest we forget Brian Moores one.

Big wrote:

nathan wrote:You know one thing, I find it truly amazing how many armchair lawyers we have on 606 lol

Agree-ish. This is a forum though so you have to expect people to discuss and give their opinion (however well or poorly informed), and as the legalities are being questioned it's reasonable for people to give their views. I'd rather give an uneducated view and have someone in a better position to judge correct me, than remain in ignorance. Provided people understand the difference between something being their opinion and something being fact, I don't really have any issue.

Getting back to the debate...

Personally I'm struggling to see the issue here. ERC have sold the rights to any future tournament they organise, and PRL have sold the rights to any tournament they are involved in. I'd assume they are conditional, i.e. they only get paid if the tournaments go ahead. If so presumably all this means is that the English teams won't be involved in the Heineken Cup or one of the two is going to have to wiggle/buy their way out of the contract. I'd also assume that they need some kind of union approval but that this will come if/when something is agreed. It's not exactly a great starting point for negotiations but on the face of it both sides have jumped the gun and could end up looking a tad silly.

Somewhere back their in the thread someone mentioned that from a French perspective they don't really care as they could make more money having no European cup and increasing the TOP14 to a TOP16. It's not the easiest data to find (the last article I saw with figures was about 5/6 years ago) but back then English clubs were also making more a lot more money for domestic matches (more than double if I remember correctly). I appreciate it may have changed since, but I can't imagine they have closed a gap of that magnitude and suspect that the AP clubs would do better financially with a 14/15 team premiership than they would maintaining the status quo with the Heineken Cup. Just a thought, but no euro cup may be their goal as well.

I'm sure the french clubs would be delighted to do this for the reasons you suggest. But i doubt the French union would be so pleased since i suspect they believe it is in the greater interest of the sport for a pan european competition to remain in some form. The fact is i've read pretty much every single piece of literature written on this story since it broke and i still have no idea how the English or ERC are going to play it, let alone the French who have kept their cards very close to their chest.

HERSH wrote:Lest we forget Brian Moores one.

Thanks for the back up on that one, Hersh

The more i look at the previous pro 12/magners/celtic league the more i like the idea of 3 leagues within 1 for qualification for european rugby.

top 2 go into heinie bottom 2 go into amlin

2010-2011 season

IRISH
MUNSTER 83
LEINSTER 70
ULSTER 67
CONNACHT 39

Ulster would have been only 1 win from knocking out leinster to the amlin cup, would make any team think twice before resting players.

WELSH
OSPREYS 63
SCARLETS 62
CARDIFF 60
DRAGONS 46

1 win between 3 teams, again would make any team think twice before resting players.

think it would be bad for just the pro12 top 6, if the scots and italians have a season like 2010-2011 they would have no representation at all in the top tier so why don't they do a small group aswell.

SCOT/ITALIAN
EDINBURGH 43
BENETTON 38
GLASGOW 33
AIRONI 12

not much between glasgow and benetton so would make them fight a bit harder, and you still end up with a scottish and italian side in the top tier which they would have to fight for.
By 2011-2012 results glasgow and benetton would take the top spots with edinburgh along with aironi moving into the amlin but it would be even more of a fight with edinburgh only 1 win behind benetton to have 2 scottish clubs in the heinie and kick the italians down to the amlin.