TV rights for Celtic Rugby and the European rows threatening Celtic rugby, a notice to all Rabo fans

First topic message reminder :

I do not know if anybody is aware, but there is a programme on every Friday night at 9pm called sports Wales, now this is looking at the European row threatening the Celtic nations and TV rights for the Rabo league. I am waiting for this with baited breath and cannot wait to see what they tell us, after all we have all had enough to say about it on here recently. Bon appetit.

Ignore me, thanks Hammer&Neil.

Yeah I know Hammer I was just trying to explain to the others lol sometimes there are negotiations between unions too but that's a whole other level of complicated that there's no point getting into. Currently the ERC sells the rights for the Heineken and Amlin cups however this runs out soon hence why BT have been able to buy these rights subject to approval by RFU, part of the negotiations ongoing now is about the rights and the most likely outcome is that some if not all will be able to sell their own broadcasting rights.

neilthom7 wrote:Yeah I know Hammer I was just trying to explain to the others lol sometimes there are negotiations between unions too but that's a whole other level of complicated that there's no point getting into. Currently the ERC sells the rights for the Heineken and Amlin cups however this runs out soon hence why BT have been able to buy these rights subject to approval by RFU, part of the negotiations ongoing now is about the rights and the most likely outcome is that some if not all will be able to sell their own broadcasting rights.

+1 (edit: Sorry I miss-read your previous post)

One interesting out come could be whether the BT is seen as a plus for the PRL or a negative in terms of negotiations. So...

1) PRL say "if you make concessions we'll bring in a hefty packet to spread around"

or

2) Others say "we want to pool Broadcasting rights again, unless you make concessions"

I think that will come down to the exact nature of the BT deal. The only reason you pool broadcasting rights is because you make more collectively than apart. If the ERC have been poorly negotiating with Sky then the point of that is lost.

BTW Does anyone else think that releasing the news of the BT deal was all BT rather than a move on the PRL's behalf?

And has anyone watched the programme that was the object of this article?

You could defo be right about BT wanting to announce because they need people to sign up and announcing this not long after the football deal may just help persuade people they aren't just going to have football and that's all they will have because they spent all they have on it.I think at least they provide competition for SKY which will either way get a better price for the Heineken.

There seems to be a bit of confusion about what "broadcast rights" means.

BT does not have a "UK deal". They have a deal with PRL. The deal gives BT the right to televise English Premiership league games, and also any Premiership team home matches in whatever European competition is agreed. BT will organize cameras and commentary teams for these matches.

So, BT has a televised product which it will then look to distribute. BT can do this through its own broadband network. It can also do this through its own TV channel, which it will look to offer through existing cable and satellite infrastructure.

Under ordinary rights deals, BT would also be able to sell its product in markets where it does not have its own broadband or TV offering. The firm will do this through licensing. Broadcasters around the world can pay BT for the right to take its live feed and show it in their own territories.

Nothing about the BT deal gives the rights to televise any games in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, France or Wales. Even if they involve English Premiership clubs.

BT does have the right to distribute its new product in these, and other, markets.

On the announcement of BT deal, IIRC either PRL or BT said they were obliged to announce deal cos of financial markets obligations as a Plc. I've no idea whether that's true but I know I read that in some news report.

Anyway, it's a moot point at this stage. BT have to follow up with what they're offering everyone else - the English deal on its own wont cut it. Particularly if they're attaching conditions on structure or management to it. Whatever about the outcome, the notion that a communications company would dictate the rules and structure would be anathema to most fans. That was a big mistake by the BT chief exec - he lost the run of himself.

Rugby Fan wrote:There seems to be a bit of confusion about what "broadcast rights" means.

BT does not have a "UK deal". They have a deal with PRL. The deal gives BT the right to televise English Premiership league games, and also any Premiership team home matches in whatever European competition is agreed. BT will organize cameras and commentary teams for these matches.

So, BT has a televised product which it will then look to distribute. BT can do this through its own broadband network. It can also do this through its own TV channel, which it will look to offer through existing cable and satellite infrastructure.

Under ordinary rights deals, BT would also be able to sell its product in markets where it does not have its own broadband or TV offering. The firm will do this through licensing. Broadcasters around the world can pay BT for the right to take its live feed and show it in their own territories.

Nothing about the BT deal gives the rights to televise any games in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, France or Wales. Even if they involve English Premiership clubs.

BT does have the right to distribute its new product in these, and other, markets.

In any and all communications on the BT deal, both PRL and BT have said UK rights - it's not inspired by anyone on here, RF.

HammerofThunor wrote:And has anyone watched the programme that was the object of this article?

I did watch it, and it was really just fluff. The segment on the contract dispute was not much more than 10 minutes long. Sport Wales is just a magazine programme so it wasn't really the best platform for a decent discussion. I've learned more about the situation through reading views on these forums, and the links people have provided.

Pot Hale wrote:In any and all communications on the BT deal, both PRL and BT have said UK rights - it's not inspired by anyone on here, RF.

That refers to distribution rights, Pot. Sorry, I probably could have been clearer.

Rugby Fan, that makes sense. I thought they may have bought all the distribution rights. So for example a French broadcaster may 'hire' the live BT footage to show on their channel in France. But they would buy it off BT not PRL. That the jist?

That makes a lot of sense given the development BT have agreed to in the grounds as part of the deal.

HammerofThunor wrote:RSo for example a French broadcaster may 'hire' the live BT footage to show on their channel in France. But they would buy it off BT not PRL. That the jist?

Yes, that's the idea, but, to be honest, we can't be absolutely certain based on the announcements so far.

It's possible that the PRL has retained other rights for itself to sell elsewhere. It's also possible that they have contracted to be paid a percentage of whatever BT can get for licensing elsewhere. There are several aspects to a rights deal and its not unusual for the core deal to get most focus. For instance, there are often separate licenses for delayed and live broadcast, as well as highlights packages.

Given that the RFU has made its presence known over who has rights to broadcast Premiership team matches in England, the PRL may well have held back on arrangements outside the core deal to sweeten the pot with them.

Broadcast rights deals are complicated by the fact that most sports rely on another body coming in to televise and record their matches/competitions. In rugby, for instance, the cameras, sound equipment and commentary teams are provided by Sky, ESPN, BBC, local radio etc. These broadcasters help create the product, so rights to distribute it outside the broadcasters usual markets aren't a simple matter. (By contrast, the IOC arranges its own television coverage of the Olympics and sells that feed. There is no longer a "home broadcaster" at the Games: the BBC took their video from the IOC in London)

There can be some conflicts over distribution. Broadcasters elsewhere don't always come knocking on your door to license your product. Sometimes, you have to make an effort to sell it, and that costs money. Deals on overseas rights are sometimes determined by who is prepared to take responsibility for marketing the product.

Which is why only 'televised' games in the premiership have a TMO.

One thing I never really understood was why the BT TV deal started all these 'end of the HEC' articles. Granted it may mean end of the current HEC but that was probably going to happen anyway. I wonder if BT will offer a sponsorship deal as well.

HammerofThunor wrote:Which is why only 'televised' games in the premiership have a TMO.

There are cameras at matches which aren't shown live - that's how we get highlights packages - but the TMO works because a live broadcaster cues replays from various camera angles for him.

HammerofThunor wrote:I wonder if BT will offer a sponsorship deal as well.

The Aviva contract kicked of in summer 2010 and was a four year deal for £20 million. You don't necessarily want a media company as a sponsor because it can complicate resale rights to other broadcasters and coverage by other media organizations.

We also get the full matches, not just highlights. When I mentioned sponsorship I meant for the European Cup not the league. But your reasons make sense

If the RFU allow the deal to go ahead which they don't seem to.

At the mOment the PRL have nothing to sell.

maestegmafia wrote:If the RFU allow the deal to go ahead which they don't seem to.

At the moment the PRL have nothing to sell.

At this stage, I doubt the negotiations are taking place on the premise that the RFU will scupper everything. While everyone is still talking, the working assumption will be that the RFU will put a seal of approal on the deal if an agreement is reached.

If everything breaks down, then the RFU might weigh in to try and twist some arms. That's a risky strategy, though, because it would put them on a collision course with the English clubs. The good news for the Rabo teams is that also means PRL probably would prefer to reach a satisfactory deal rather than let it reach that point. If the French look like agreeing to a proposal then there's a greater chance the PRL will fall in line with them. The not-so-good news for the Rabo teams is that the French don't appear to want only a scheduling change.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:If the RFU allow the deal to go ahead which they don't seem to.

At the moment the PRL have nothing to sell.

At this stage, I doubt the negotiations are taking place on the premise that the RFU will scupper everything. While everyone is still talking, the working assumption will be that the RFU will put a seal of approal on the deal if an agreement is reached.

If everything breaks down, then the RFU might weigh in to try and twist some arms. That's a risky strategy, though, because it would put them on a collision course with the English clubs. The good news for the Rabo teams is that also means PRL probably would prefer to reach a satisfactory deal rather than let it reach that point. If the French look like agreeing to a proposal then there's a greater chance the PRL will fall in line with them. The not-so-good news for the Rabo teams is that the French don't appear to want only a scheduling change.

Looks to me much more like the RP12 and T14 teams are aligning with the RFU against the PRL.

According to the telegraph billy Beaumont is having a meeting with the clubs, (not the PRL) to help sort this mess out.

"Beaumont is set to meet with owners of the 12 Premiership clubs next Wednesday and says he is prepared to use his influence to help broker a deal ahead of the European Rugby Cup stakeholders’ next meeting in Rome on Oct 8.
“As chairman of the RFU and being involved in the Six Nations committee we have a meeting coming up in Rome and that will be an agenda item,” said Beaumont.
“I would like to think with the contacts that I have got and the relationships I have built up amongst our neighbours, I will try and use my best endeavours.
“That is what the RFU wants. We are keen to resolve this situation. We don’t want to be at loggerheads with our neighbours all the time or the clubs. Why would we?”

The BT Vision deal might be a vast amount of money but that does not mean it is necesarily any good for the game.

This is why it is better that the unions deal with these matters than the club owners reps at the PRL.

maestegmafia wrote:...that does not mean it is necessarily any good for the game. This is why it is better that the unions deal with these matters than the club owners reps at the PRL.

There can't be many who would argue PRL are guardians of the good of the game. However, you are a lot more confident than me that the unions fill that role any better.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:...that does not mean it is necessarily any good for the game. This is why it is better that the unions deal with these matters than the club owners reps at the PRL.

There can't be many who would argue PRL are guardians of the good of the game. However, you are a lot more confident than me that the unions fill that role any better.

I think that if we want to hold what is left of the game that we can still hold dear then the unions are the way forward. I state that in reflection of the current financial aims that are attempting to entice our game. Certainly the unions of many of the top ten nations are doing a very good job. We have our gripes, but on the whole they are protecting the important culture of the game for fans and players, securing it a responsible and sustainable future.

Looking at the countries involved in the ERC debate then I would say that it is Ireland and Wales that have the more modern unions, both forward thinking and both have adapted to their current circumstance.

Italy are very young and scotland a small population, and both are struggling to succeed a game in a country where rugby lies second fiddle to soccer. But they are major nations in europe. Like the WRU and IRFU they are doing a great job, despite a few gripes, of keeping the game alive and successful.

The FFR struggle against the clubs and the wealth of club owners but their leadership is respected.

The RFU are not as strong compared to their elite clubs as is seen in other countries and this battle now between the PRLs direction and the RFUs governance of the game has been brewing for a long time.

Ever since McCafferty took control it seems like the PRL want to constantly stretch their power in the game.

Unions are less impressed by large sums of cash and more impressed by a sustainable and positive future direction. Organisations like the PRL serve wealthy club owners accountants and see short term gains as a result the welfare of the game appears secondary.

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:...that does not mean it is necessarily any good for the game. This is why it is better that the unions deal with these matters than the club owners reps at the PRL.

There can't be many who would argue PRL are guardians of the good of the game. However, you are a lot more confident than me that the unions fill that role any better.

I think that if we want to hold what is left of the game that we can still hold dear then the unions are the way forward. I state that in reflection of the current financial aims that are attempting to entice our game. Certainly the unions of many of the top ten nations are doing a very good job. We have our gripes, but on the whole they are protecting the important culture of the game for fans and players, securing it a responsible and sustainable future.

Looking at the countries involved in the ERC debate then I would say that it is Ireland and Wales that have the more modern unions, both forward thinking and both have adapted to their current circumstance.

Italy are very young and scotland a small population, and both are struggling to succeed a game in a country where rugby lies second fiddle to soccer. But they are major nations in europe. Like the WRU and IRFU they are doing a great job, despite a few gripes, of keeping the game alive and successful.

The FFR struggle against the clubs and the wealth of club owners but their leadership is respected.

The RFU are not as strong compared to their elite clubs as is seen in other countries and this battle now between the PRLs direction and the RFUs governance of the game has been brewing for a long time.

Ever since McCafferty took control it seems like the PRL want to constantly stretch their power in the game.

Unions are less impressed by large sums of cash and more impressed by a sustainable and positive future direction. Organisations like the PRL serve wealthy club owners accountants and see short term gains as a result the welfare of the game appears secondary.

+1

maestegmafia wrote:Looks to me much more like the RP12 and T14 teams are aligning with the RFU against the PRL.

According to the telegraph billy Beaumont is having a meeting with the clubs, (not the PRL) to help sort this mess out.

"Beaumont is set to meet with owners of the 12 Premiership clubs next Wednesday and says he is prepared to use his influence to help broker a deal ahead of the European Rugby Cup stakeholders’ next meeting in Rome on Oct 8.
“As chairman of the RFU and being involved in the Six Nations committee we have a meeting coming up in Rome and that will be an agenda item,” said Beaumont.
“I would like to think with the contacts that I have got and the relationships I have built up amongst our neighbours, I will try and use my best endeavours.
“That is what the RFU wants. We are keen to resolve this situation. We don’t want to be at loggerheads with our neighbours all the time or the clubs. Why would we?”

The BT Vision deal might be a vast amount of money but that does not mean it is necesarily any good for the game.

This is why it is better that the unions deal with these matters than the club owners reps at the PRL.

Is this quote supposed to back up your point? Bill is meeting with the clubs because they're the ones that vote on the direction the PRL (because they ARE the PRL). He goes on to say he wants an amicable solution. Which is what everyone is saying.

And, where has it been indicated that the RFU won't sign off on the BT deal? All they've said so far is that they have to.

The Clubs and union have been in a power struggle since professionalism was implemented. Since McCafferty took over things have stabilized massively to it's lowest ebb in decades.

Unions are less impressed by large sums of cash and more impressed by a sustainable and positive future direction. Organisations like the PRL serve wealthy club owners accountants and see short term gains as a result the welfare of the game appears secondary.

You mean like organizing extra internationals during the season to line their pockets? Reinforcing the ideal that the league doesn't matter? Or encouraging the European cup isn't made FTA so they can make more money off it?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Unions are less impressed by large sums of cash and more impressed by a sustainable and positive future direction. Organisations like the PRL serve wealthy club owners accountants and see short term gains as a result the welfare of the game appears secondary.

You mean like organizing extra internationals during the season to line their pockets? Reinforcing the ideal that the league doesn't matter? Or encouraging the European cup isn't made FTA so they can make more money off it?

It affected the HEC not the Rp12 and if you look at posts concerning it I supported the WRU and justified their actions.

Wales need to reduce debt and scheduling a good number of home internationals per annum is part of the deal with their financiers. They are thinking for the longterm good of the game, not a short term fix.

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Looks to me much more like the RP12 and T14 teams are aligning with the RFU against the PRL.

According to the telegraph billy Beaumont is having a meeting with the clubs, (not the PRL) to help sort this mess out.

"Beaumont is set to meet with owners of the 12 Premiership clubs next Wednesday and says he is prepared to use his influence to help broker a deal ahead of the European Rugby Cup stakeholders’ next meeting in Rome on Oct 8.
“As chairman of the RFU and being involved in the Six Nations committee we have a meeting coming up in Rome and that will be an agenda item,” said Beaumont.
“I would like to think with the contacts that I have got and the relationships I have built up amongst our neighbours, I will try and use my best endeavours.
“That is what the RFU wants. We are keen to resolve this situation. We don’t want to be at loggerheads with our neighbours all the time or the clubs. Why would we?”

The BT Vision deal might be a vast amount of money but that does not mean it is necesarily any good for the game.

This is why it is better that the unions deal with these matters than the club owners reps at the PRL.

Is this quote supposed to back up your point? Bill is meeting with the clubs because they're the ones that vote on the direction the PRL (because they ARE the PRL). He goes on to say he wants an amicable solution. Which is what everyone is saying.

And, where has it been indicated that the RFU won't sign off on the BT deal? All they've said so far is that they have to.

The Clubs and union have been in a power struggle since professionalism was implemented. Since McCafferty took over things have stabilized massively to it's lowest ebb in decades.

Billy Beaumont is stepping in to talk to clubs to encourage them to act differently when they act as the PRL. Thankfully the RFU are intelligent enough to see this deal had a large dose of sugar poured on top to make it look interesting.

The RFU have said that the deal is illegal as th ERC and everyone else expected.

The clubs and the union have not stabilised, tithe union have lacked backbone in dealing with the clubs. Read anything written by Martyn Thomas.

How do you know what Bill is talking to the clubs about? Making it up?

The RFU has more access to the players, limits the number of games they can play, controls their training throughout the year, has medical control. Not bad considering they don't have backbone.

You seem to think that the union should be able to do what they want because they run the international side. This may surprise you but not everyone wants what you want. I'm perfectly happy with the current set-up. I hope, and fully expect, the RFU to endorse the BT European TV deal. I honestly don't see the issue with it, other than the ERC wanting to be control freaks. TV rights are pooled because you get more for it. PRL have got more for their games than the ERC got for all of them. Of course that's because they're greedy basterds (unlike the WRU who are just trying to improve their finances the poor dears).

The English and French club model is a poor money consuming expensive short term model we don't want to follow.

The Rabbo teams all have fine academies that train and provide good players for the future.

Yes I would like to see a more competitive Rabbo and I do not mind tougher qualification. And a tougher HEC would only benefit clubs of all countries and their fans but money is not the answer, organisation and long term planning is.

We are doing the right things that France and England are not.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Unions are less impressed by large sums of cash and more impressed by a sustainable and positive future direction. Organisations like the PRL serve wealthy club owners accountants and see short term gains as a result the welfare of the game appears secondary.

You mean like organizing extra internationals during the season to line their pockets? Reinforcing the ideal that the league doesn't matter? Or encouraging the European cup isn't made FTA so they can make more money off it?

It affected the HEC not the Rp12 and if you look at posts concerning it I supported the WRU and justified their actions.

Wales need to reduce debt and scheduling a good number of home internationals per annum is part of the deal with their financiers. They are thinking for the longterm good of the game, not a short term fix.

Well by what you say, you shouldn't be following your current financial model.

Martyn Thomas who absolutely doenst have an axe to grind with the RFU? The great joke is it was his man Andrew whos job it was to negotiate the elite set up with the clubs in the first place.
The problems though go back much further, the RFU didnt deal with professionalism at all when it was introduced...they just told the clubs to get on with it and keep sending the money up for their annual dinner dances. As a result the clubs are largely independent of the union.

Everyone though still wants a strong european competition, and its not like the RFU dont support an increased share for the English clubs...they just want the deal negotiate centrally so that they hold the purse strings and can try and hold the clubs in hock as overlords like the Rabo nations do.

This doesnt mean the clubs are trying to destroy the a HC type competition. There will be one, its just theres a lot of power politics, bickering, point proving and brinkmanship involved in hammering out a deal between the various interested parties who all have their own selfish agendas.

nathan wrote:

The English and French club model is a poor money consuming expensive short term model we don't want to follow.

The Rabbo teams all have fine academies that train and provide good players for the future.

Yes I would like to see a more competitive Rabbo and I do not mind tougher qualification. And a tougher HEC would only benefit clubs of all countries and their fans but money is not the answer, organisation and long term planning is.

We are doing the right things that France and England are not.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Unions are less impressed by large sums of cash and more impressed by a sustainable and positive future direction. Organisations like the PRL serve wealthy club owners accountants and see short term gains as a result the welfare of the game appears secondary.

You mean like organizing extra internationals during the season to line their pockets? Reinforcing the ideal that the league doesn't matter? Or encouraging the European cup isn't made FTA so they can make more money off it?

It affected the HEC not the Rp12 and if you look at posts concerning it I supported the WRU and justified their actions.

Wales need to reduce debt and scheduling a good number of home internationals per annum is part of the deal with their financiers. They are thinking for the longterm good of the game, not a short term fix.

Well by what you say, you shouldn't be following your current financial model.

No our current model has halved the debt. It is a very very good model.

HammerofThunor wrote:How do you know what Bill is talking to the clubs about? Making it up?

Read the article I referenced.

You haven't referenced an article. You've quoted part, which doesn't back up your point. And then said it was in the Telegraph. When? Written or Online? If online provide a link. If in print provide a page number.

maestegmafia wrote:

nathan wrote:

The English and French club model is a poor money consuming expensive short term model we don't want to follow.

The Rabbo teams all have fine academies that train and provide good players for the future.

Yes I would like to see a more competitive Rabbo and I do not mind tougher qualification. And a tougher HEC would only benefit clubs of all countries and their fans but money is not the answer, organisation and long term planning is.

We are doing the right things that France and England are not.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Unions are less impressed by large sums of cash and more impressed by a sustainable and positive future direction. Organisations like the PRL serve wealthy club owners accountants and see short term gains as a result the welfare of the game appears secondary.

You mean like organizing extra internationals during the season to line their pockets? Reinforcing the ideal that the league doesn't matter? Or encouraging the European cup isn't made FTA so they can make more money off it?

It affected the HEC not the Rp12 and if you look at posts concerning it I supported the WRU and justified their actions.

Wales need to reduce debt and scheduling a good number of home internationals per annum is part of the deal with their financiers. They are thinking for the longterm good of the game, not a short term fix.

Well by what you say, you shouldn't be following your current financial model.

No our current model has halved the debt. It is a very very good model.

The WRU is making profit. The RFU is making profit. Are the regions making profit? Some clubs are.

Oh yeah the Wasps model is a great one to follow

neilthom7 wrote:Oh yeah the Wasps model is a great one to follow

???

They were about a month away from Administration, so don't get all high and mighty about how English clubs make profit etc most of it is actually off-written debt by owners.

I said some clubs are. I don't say how many (4) or which ones. Not sure how that's 'high and mighty'.

It was in response to Maesteg claims that the Welsh system is superior. I said both the WRU and RFU are making money. Some clubs are. I've no idea on the Regions other than the Scarlets are hoping to break even this season (i.e. have been making a loss up to now). The RFU are making Poopie loads of cash. For the Welsh system to be superior to the English system (baring in mind he's talking about the clubs being money pits, not the international games) the regions must also be making money. At least one as 1/3 of the English clubs turn a profit.

maestegmafia wrote:I think that if we want to hold what is left of the game that we can still hold dear then the unions are the way forward. I state that in reflection of the current financial aims that are attempting to entice our game. Certainly the unions of many of the top ten nations are doing a very good job. We have our gripes, but on the whole they are protecting the important culture of the game for fans and players, securing it a responsible and sustainable future.

I'm not so sure. The unions are the main reason for the dilemmas we find ourselves in today. Our game went headlong into professionalism, rather than planning its way judiciously, because the unions had been so blinkered, arrogant, and sometimes downright mendacious.

Unions banished players from the game even for writing their memoirs while tolerating boot money and any number of under-the-table deals. They enriched themselves through the international calendar without much thought of distributing the spoils to the grassroots. Some unions were dismissive of the effort to establish a World Cup but were soon onboard when they realized how much money it could bring in. They still had no plans to spread the extra money around.

Top heavy financials is one of the key problems for rugby. The international game is lucrative but the unions have done little to ensure a sustainable base elsewhere. Which country really has a decent model? Australia bemoans the fact that it has no thriving rugby base under their five Super Rugby teams. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the NPC is having one of its worst ever years for crowds and TV audiences - down by half in some instances. The expanded Super Rugby competition is being held partly to blame.

Wales couldn't see a way to make club rugby work and so set up the regions. Where are the crowds? Scotland can't always be sure of bringing in the crowds even for international matches. All the unions talk about expanding the game but many, like Scotland, are fearful of losing a place at rugby's top table.

I don't believe PRL has a wonderful vision for the world game but the clubs have been backed into a corner. It's all very well talking about how the French and English teams are paying silly money to players but one of the driving forces behind these sums is the wealth of the rugby at the top. I'm sure we'd all like a better balance to be struck but the unions have hardly been at the forefront. Their amateur approach to administration leaves a vacuum, so its hardly surprising to see others try to find a way to fill it.

Rugby fan

The WRU has done an excellent job of leading Wales into the future. I agree no one in the NH transitioned into professional rugby well. Least of all us. But the changes they have made have been remarkable from top to bottom.

The regions have been a similar issue to the blindness entering professionalism but the WRU have intervened and they now, very much seem to be on the straight and narrow. Most importantly they have looked to our future and youth rugby is an ever growing strength in Wales.

Ireland is very similar too. Strong provinces and an emphasis on youth rugby. Both are modelled on SH rugby.

I see those as examples of a responsible union looking forward to a future. Certainly the seats of power that I am far happier managing the game rather than a club owners organisation that only represent the elite of their nations game.

I am sure we can all understand English fans perspectives towards their union being less enthusiastic than ours as the RFU have failed endlessly to deal with the PRLs power struggles, invariably backing down to bullying tactics by the PRL leadership.

Thankfully Billy Beaumont looks like he will take the character he lead on the field with to the negotiating table and lead the RFU out of the turbulent mess they have been in.

Are the Regions making profit?

HammerofThunor wrote:Are the Regions making profit?

Isn't there meant to be a statement from Lewis about the Price Waterhouse Coopers Review out sometime soon?

It could be the 'envy of the rugby world' says Lewis. I can't wait

That's it solved... The Heineken Profits Cup.

Are you guys a bunch of accountants and 'City' people? I think you all drool more at the lovely balance sheets and contract details than you do at a good try being scored.

Priorities gentlemen, please.

BTW, PRL are way ahead in this year's Profits Cup... I can't see us catching 'em this season unless we get an Arab prince into our backline.

SecretFly wrote:BTW, PRL are way ahead in this year's Profits Cup... I can't see us catching 'em this season unless we get an Arab prince into our backline.

Ah yes when Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said moves to Balbriggan, Leinster Rugby will triumph.

red_stag wrote:

SecretFly wrote:BTW, PRL are way ahead in this year's Profits Cup... I can't see us catching 'em this season unless we get an Arab prince into our backline.

Ah yes when Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said moves to Balbriggan, Leinster Rugby will triumph.

Only if he has access to his Daddy's credit cards, Stag...only if he has the keys to the Swiss bank accounts. We don't just let any auld Arab in, we have standards.

No room for new money in Leinster Rugby. Not when the D4 Brigade rule the roost.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/club/funding/financial_assistance_guidelines.php

Just out of interest have you tried clicking on
Guidelines on Financial assistance for clubs or the Application Form ?

The result is - 'The information you requested could not be retrieved' !!


Well it made me laugh

BigTrev...are you trying to spy on our tactics for the season again?
Oh you naughty cad, sir.

Besides, you really don't know a whole lot about Ireland if you think anything financial is ever fully divulged to a curious public. Even our budgets get aired in Germany's parliament before we get the priviledge of seeing them and paying for them.

SecretFly wrote:BigTrev...are you trying to spy on our tactics for the season again?
Oh you naughty cad, sir.

Besides, you really don't know a whole lot about Ireland if you think anything financial is ever fully divulged to a curious public. Even our budgets get aired in Germany's parliament before we get the priviledge of seeing them and paying for them.

SecretFly wrote:Are you guys a bunch of accountants and 'City' people? I think you all drool more at the lovely balance sheets and contract details than you do at a good try being scored. Priorities gentlemen, please.

As a lover of the game, I want to celebrate your sentiments but I can't shake off the feeling that being too dismissive of the role money plays can be part of the problem.

The history of rugby is full of conflicts over money (and class, of course). We all know it was a key reason behind the creation of rugby league.

The World Cup, sponsorship deals, sale of corporate packages and the like, were all introduced in the ostensibly amateur era. The game didn't turn professional from a standing start on the money front. There was always a considerable pipeline of revenue at the top but access to it was strictly limited.

Having embraced professionalism, rugby administrators are still running to catch up with the novel idea that a lot of people would like the opportunity to make some money out of the sport. I don't necessarily trust the motives and ambitions of wealthy club owners but nor can I give the unions a free pass on that front either.

The unions make most of their money from the international game. This can produce a conflict because there are only a limited number of Tests you can fit into the calendar. The sport benefits if the major unions schedule more matches against emerging rugby nations. However, they also bring in little revenue so it's not very good business. Scotland's summer tour stands out because it was such a rare visit. I ended up watching their Samoa game on a hastily-arranged online feed of local TV because no-one could be bothered bidding even a few pennies for the broadcast rights.

It's not as if all unions run "A" teams to field against this opposition. Wales don't. I'm not sure France do now either. I think that's how Steve Shingler ran into his problems, because both unions have designated their U20 teams as second teams for IRB qualification purposes.

The delicate balancing act for the unions is how to rake in cash from Test matches as well as supporting the game. This raises the question of how much they really want other countries to succeed. Should the likes of Georgia, Tonga and Fiji play their way to the top table, it could be a nightmare for national union finances. It would also imply some established unions have slipped down the rankings, which would also impact cashflow.

Some administrators in the south accuse the home unions of looking to to run the game as a closed shop. I don't think they are entirely wrong, but the view does demonstrate a blindness to the same behaviour by their own unions. Australia is very dependent on Test revenue. They even argued for more money from the IRB because taking part in the World Cup cut down on other commercial playing opportunities. There aren't looking for match-ups against low return teams.

Yes, Argentina has joined the Rugby Championship, but it's noteworthy that people have spoken about their arrival as a way to spice up a tournament which had become jaded (i.e. in danger of generating less cash). I don't think anyone regarded the Five Nations as a jaded concept when Italy were invited to join. It's interesting to hear some in the south say they'd like to see more Argentinians in Super Rugby. The NZRU and ARU don't seem to be falling over themselves to welcome in an overseas contingent at the expense of developing locally qualified players.

The sport needs to work out what its priorities are. For instance, we'll probably never again see a Barbarians like the 1973 side who beat the All-Blacks. Most home unions players just aren't available anymore. It's common to hear complaints about clubs being unwilling to release players. You could just as easily blame the national unions since they want every bit of time from the players when they aren't with their teams. That's as much a commercial decision as any made by the clubs.

That '73 side was a shadow British Lions team. The 2009 Lions were mostly Welsh and Irish but there was never a hope in hell of seeing them take the field en masse against the next touring side in Britain, so it's just as much of an issue for centrally-contracted players. We did get to see Jamie Roberts, as well as brief glimpses of Leigh Halfpenny and Andy Powell. However, most of the Baa-Baas who beat New Zealand at Twickenham in 2009 were South African and Australian.

Thanks rugby fan great to hear your views on the game as a whole and many points we all agree on.

Though not sure much of it is overly relevant to the thread at hand.

I guess the just of your point is over the responsibility of leadership which most definitely at the forefront of my opinions regarding the OP.

The difference in opinions between English fans and the rest of us is that in many ways we are happy with our unions leadership and the English obviously are not. They see what the PRL are doing as trying to take the game forward financially. I am sceptical of the deal, who they are dealing withs motives for rugby and the PRL who are trying to broker this deal.

The PRLs previous contempt for other countries rugby and the rushed and cloaked manner of their deal, the RFU,their own governing body, were so completely unaware of its existance in planning, that they started their questioning of its legality after the big media announcement.

This may well be the way the PRL and BT Vision like to do business but it is very apparently not the way anyone else does.

Rugby Fan wrote:
The delicate balancing act for the unions is how to rake in cash from Test matches as well as supporting the game. This raises the question of how much they really want other countries to succeed. Should the likes of Georgia, Tonga and Fiji play their way to the top table, it could be a nightmare for national union finances. It would also imply some established unions have slipped down the rankings, which would also impact cashflow.

How is that the case, rugby fan? Do you mean poor countries? I can see your point but generally the more competitive countries, the better. They'd bring in TV money sponsorship etc. If we could get a few more European countries interested in rugby it would create a lot more wealth for the game.