BT deal and Europe

Just ttrying to work this out.

its £152m for 4 years league, and 3 years Europe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/12/premiership-rugby-bt-deal-broadcast

Prevous deal was three-year £54m, just league
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/11/sky-setanta-guinness-premiership-rugby


Meaning the old deal was £1.5 million per club per year (roughly, prize money ect, but on average)

New deal McCafferty said "will mean an increase of 50% in television revenue for our clubs"
which by my clacs, over 4 years would total £108 million,

Meaning that the BT deal bring in £46 million to Europe over 3 years.

ERC Deal with Sky is worth £70m over four years.
http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/domestic-club-rugby-union/european-cup/3821/english-will-offer-100m-bait-to-land-their-jackpot/


From that point of View the ERC deal is actually better?



The other way I can look at it is they mention that
"McCafferty admitted it will be a wrench to part with Sky, which helped the clubs in the early years of professionalism by insisting that 30% of a £125m deal it negotiated with the Rugby Football Union went directly to the teams in the top flight."

Was that for England's QBE Internationals deal? Will the RFU have to give top flight clubs 30%? If so it runs for 3 more years and then in next deal would the top clubs still have to receive 30%?



Can anyone make sense of how the deal would work?

No, I was trying to do the same as you but gave up mate...

Looking at hearsay, and rumour is very difficult!!

Supposing the English clubs don't get their way, does that mean the BT dealis off?

To me it looks like BT are using the English clubs to do their dirty work. Give the clubs extra money on condition they engineer control (of rugby coverage) towards BT. McCaffery and Co are only too happy to do it.

If there is no h-cup, or the parties agree it was ERC's to sell to SKY,

Then I think that the bit I workout out as £108 million, will still go to the English clubs and rest,

However some reports are that the bt deal is worth £100 million for 3 years in Europe, compared to skys £70 million. Meaning that BT deal for Aviva is £54 million over 4 years, which is less than the old one.


Looking at it the BT deal may not be the game changer that McCafferty believes it to be.

Keep going Kingshu, you're playing a blinder with these figures.

Like I said a while back...I'd say the AP side of the deal (the big chunk) is reliant on BT getting the Euro bit. I'd say if BT don't get the Euro bit then the AP side of the deal will be less. I wouldn't say anything is signed yet until the HC is decided and therefore BT will have some options available for a lesser offer.

PRL, if they know their AP slice of the money is bigger with BT at the HC helm, then they'll fight for that eventuality.

They've already said BT will bring More money to the European event and now you're thinking...nope, it's actually less.

So, PRL is trying to get more money for AP by offering less to the other sides of Europe - in return for less European involvement (Irish, Welsh, Scottish or Italian sides perhaps missing.)

And they're wondering why ERC and other Union accountants don't like it?

The BT deal for European games comes to ~£15.3m per year and the Sky deal comes to ~£17.5m per year according to the first post. However the BT deal is only the the English clubs' home games while the Sky deal is for all the games. Unless the rest of the games are sold for less than £2.2m per year the BT deal will be part of a more profitable deal.

To be honest all my stuff is just educicated guesswork.

But just for the UK and Ireland market,(French and Italian deals still have to be sold and added to the BT or SKY deals so are equal and can be ignored). If the Irish, Wesh and Scottish games are sold for £6.6 million for 3 years that means its same as Sky deal.

Maybe SKY deal is less (but prob not by as much as we first though) but it may be considered better to have SKY. Rugby viewing to a wider viewership, all European games on the one broadcaster, (rather than English BT, Scots Welsh Irish SKY), and maybe they worry that BT TV could go down the pan, we've seen it with ITV digital, and Sentanta before, maybe ERC wished BT to establish itself, we saw/see the problems setanta pulling out of UK market did to Scottish football, maybe ERC looked on it as a warning to be careful.

Just pointing out that money isn't the be all and end all of a deal.

BT do have serious clout and look serious, but looking into it, I'm not so sure the BT deal is the super deal that we were lead to believe.

Looks maybe a better deal moneywise, but is the extra worth the drawbacks? (as it there seams to be less extra than first believed).

BT does have a bit more money behind it than Setanta did and have bought ESPN UK in preparation for showing premiership games next year so it's a bit firmer ground to build on.

Having all european games on one broadcaster is a good idea but from the PRL's point of view the ERC were just giving the rights to Sky rather than having any sort of look at other broadcasters. With the BT deal they're hoping to show that the rights have been undersold and feel that using more than one broadcaster is a worthwhile trade off.

Chances are the French clubs can get a similar amount to the English which would make for a decent increase and the French broadcaster would need to make a deal with one that can broadcast here anyway.

Kingshu wrote:If there is no h-cup, or the parties agree it was ERC's to sell to SKY,

Then I think that the bit I workout out as £108 million, will still go to the English clubs and rest,

However some reports are that the bt deal is worth £100 million for 3 years in Europe, compared to skys £70 million. Meaning that BT deal for Aviva is £54 million over 4 years, which is less than the old one.


Looking at it the BT deal may not be the game changer that McCafferty believes it to be.

as pointed out on another post, i think BT's money for Europe is for the English teams only, Skys is for everyones (other than France i think)

Sky deal for producing all UK and Irish based games. Also for broadcasting the games from France and Italy. The BT deal is for producing and broadcasting the English games.

Either the English clubs generate a shed load more money than the Celtic games combined (800%) or the BT deal is worth shed loads more for Europe. Or somewhere in between of course.

I think it was said that the ERC result in £850k for the clubs each year. Assuming that split 12 ways it means the English clubs take out £10.2M per year. BT deal is supposed to be a lot more and worth £15.3M. So not That much of a difference (especially considering current is supposed to be a lot less than BT)

Edit: just found it other article. It was £8.5M combined rather than £850k each.

HammerofThunor
Does that mean to get games that are played in France and italy a 3rd broadcaster could purchase the rights (to show them in the UK and Ireland)? The French channel who buys them would sell the coverage to UK and Ireland (could well be SKY).

Meaning if a Jeff fan you would need BT to watch your teams home games, and to watch the away games you would need SKY?

Have you a link to the article for the 8.5 million?

Does the £15.3 million relate to the RFU's share? IF so are they not wishing to increase this anyway from the 25%?

Its all getting very confusing.

Kingshu wrote:HammerofThunor
Does that mean to get games that are played in France and italy a 3rd broadcaster could purchase the rights (to show them in the UK and Ireland)? The French channel who buys them would sell the coverage to UK and Ireland (could well be SKY).

Meaning if a Jeff fan you would need BT to watch your teams home games, and to watch the away games you would need SKY?

Well, of course it could. I imagine that they would do a deal with whoever it is to share coverage (if it's not UK based). If the new competition includes the Welsh (for example) and Sky have their rights I can't see them sharing with BT. But the French company probably would as they aren't competing.

Have you a link to the article for the 8.5 million?

The £8.5M was from the original post in here
https://www.606v2.com/t42675-latest-european-rumblings

Does the £15.3 million relate to the RFU's share? IF so are they not wishing to increase this anyway from the 25%?

Its all getting very confusing.

The £15.3M was from on here and was suggested as the amount the English BT rights would generate for the European pot per year (assuming a 50% increase in premiership money for the clubs. I've got no idea how much the RFU make out of the ERC, nor how much they would make on a new competition. But that would bring up the English share of the money even higher. Trying to compare before and after is difficult when we only have part of the information either way.

I do wonder about this.
Maybe if plan A fails, the English will simply add the Welsh teams to their league to fill in the void left by Europe.

8 pool games, a quarter final and a semi final, is 8 weekends, which is basically the same if you added the 4 Welsh teams to the Aviva.