Merged thread euro competition pt 2

[broadlandboy]

couldn't let it lie

[stub]

You should have let it lie...

[broadlandboy]

What's the fun in that?

[stub]

Sorry, I was just doing the Vic and Bob thing... Good that you kept it alive.

Do threads get locked on 1000 then? Or was it the rich CEO psychopath talk?

[The Great Aukster]

also a fact that people seem to skip is that the PRL don't want to be in charge and have said they would create something similar to the ERC.

On the one hand the PRL say they "don't want to be in charge", yet on the other they are seeking to destroy the organisation that is currently in charge and "create something similar". Isn't that saying one thing and doing another?

[Guest]

also a fact that people seem to skip is that the PRL don't want to be in charge and have said they would create something similar to the ERC.

On the one hand the PRL say they "don't want to be in charge", yet on the other they are seeking to destroy the organisation that is currently in charge and "create something similar". Isn't that saying one thing and doing another?

It is, and that was my point to Nathan. This whole issue has been about control. PRL have stated that they do not want a Union controlled competition, but a competition run by clubs.
Each club entered gets a vote, but then PRL/LNR enter the biggest block of clubs, and so have the controlling votes. At least that's the way I read it thus far.

[stub]

also a fact that people seem to skip is that the PRL don't want to be in charge and have said they would create something similar to the ERC.

On the one hand the PRL say they "don't want to be in charge", yet on the other they are seeking to destroy the organisation that is currently in charge and "create something similar". Isn't that saying one thing and doing another?

Only if they (PRL) then feel that they'd be in charge in the new system.

We don't know what will be set up (if anything) but they wouldn't even be in control if it were based on club votes although it's fair to say they will probably feel they have more chance to influence. However there would be nothing stopping the LNR and PRO12 outvoting the PRL.

[TJ]

also a fact that people seem to skip is that the PRL don't want to be in charge and have said they would create something similar to the ERC.

On the one hand the PRL say they "don't want to be in charge", yet on the other they are seeking to destroy the organisation that is currently in charge and "create something similar". Isn't that saying one thing and doing another?

It is, and that was my point to Nathan. This whole issue has been about control. PRL have stated that they do not want a Union controlled competition, but a competition run by clubs.
Each club entered gets a vote, but then PRL/LNR enter the biggest block of clubs, and so have the controlling votes. At least that's the way I read it thus far.

And by selling the tv rights they also have financial control.

[mr-bryns-attitude]

in france the league is king,hc is a distant second,i just don,t see the LNR clubs walking away from their union for the sake of 9 weekends,they dont ,desperately need the HC,their players would not be selected for international duty, world cup 2015 included.why would they back themselves into a corner like that,i just don,t buy it.

[HammerofThunor]

also a fact that people seem to skip is that the PRL don't want to be in charge and have said they would create something similar to the ERC.

On the one hand the PRL say they "don't want to be in charge", yet on the other they are seeking to destroy the organisation that is currently in charge and "create something similar". Isn't that saying one thing and doing another?

It is, and that was my point to Nathan. This whole issue has been about control. PRL have stated that they do not want a Union controlled competition, but a competition run by clubs.
Each club entered gets a vote, but then PRL/LNR enter the biggest block of clubs, and so have the controlling votes. At least that's the way I read it thus far.

And by selling the tv rights they also have financial control.

How does it give them financial control? What what exactly do you mean "financial control"

[HammerofThunor]

in france the league is king,hc is a distant second,i just don,t see the LNR clubs walking away from their union for the sake of 9 weekends,they dont ,desperately need the HC,their players would not be selected for international duty, world cup 2015 included.why would they back themselves into a corner like that,i just don,t buy it.

Me neither. The language Goze is using suggests they would but I certainly don't think the PRL ANC I don't think the RFU would sanction something the FFR didn't.

[broadlandboy]

A Question I asked before but nobody seems to have come up with an answer Apart from the HEC (which could have been more luck than judgment) what has the ERC done to promote European Rugby?
Has it undersold european competition? Yes as proven by the PRL/BTS deal
Has it increased the number of top level teams? No it has led to the reduction of top level teams in Wales/Scotland & Italy
Has it opened european competition to other unions? No as teams have had to withdraw because they didn't get enough money to meet expensces & its first proposal was to restrict European competition to 32 teams from the 6 Nation Unions.
So ,IMHO, the ERC has not been fit for purpose & needs to be replaced with something that is.

[TJ]

also a fact that people seem to skip is that the PRL don't want to be in charge and have said they would create something similar to the ERC.

On the one hand the PRL say they "don't want to be in charge", yet on the other they are seeking to destroy the organisation that is currently in charge and "create something similar". Isn't that saying one thing and doing another?

It is, and that was my point to Nathan. This whole issue has been about control. PRL have stated that they do not want a Union controlled competition, but a competition run by clubs.
Each club entered gets a vote, but then PRL/LNR enter the biggest block of clubs, and so have the controlling votes. At least that's the way I read it thus far.

And by selling the tv rights they also have financial control.

How does it give them financial control? What what exactly do you mean "financial control"

If you negotiate the tv rights this gives you control over the content of the deal. the PRL by doing this have tired to ensure they control as much as possible. Waht if another stakeholder wanted things done differently - they could not. He who controls the purse strings has a lot of power

[broadlandboy]

Or it could be the job of the new organisation. Dont you think it would have been sensible of the ERC of instead of rushing to sign a new deal with Sky for the same money it had thought, hang on if BTS is prepared to pay that for the PRL games How much more would it pay for the same games that Sky were going to get & had talks with BTS

[Guest]

Or it could be the job of the new organisation. Dont you think it would have been sensible of the ERC of instead of rushing to sign a new deal with Sky for the same money it had thought, hang on if BTS is prepared to pay that for the PRL games How much more would it pay for the same games that Sky were going to get & had talks with BTS

Were they aware of any BT offer? If so, do you have a link?

[mr-bryns-attitude]

Or it could be the job of the new organisation. Dont you think it would have been sensible of the ERC of instead of rushing to sign a new deal with Sky for the same money it had thought, hang on if BTS is prepared to pay that for the PRL games How much more would it pay for the same games that Sky were going to get & had talks with BTS

Were they aware of any BT offer? If so, do you have a link?

you beat me to it.i don,t think ERC were aware.

[broadlandboy]

IIRC the PRL/BT Deal was announced before the SKY deal, which was announced after PRL/LNR gave notice that they were not going to renew the accord.Which means that unless the Sky deal does not include the PRL/LNR teams the ERC sold something that it didnt have,where as the PRL/BTS deal was that if PRL teams played BTS would show it

[Guest]

Or it could be the job of the new organisation. Dont you think it would have been sensible of the ERC of instead of rushing to sign a new deal with Sky for the same money it had thought, hang on if BTS is prepared to pay that for the PRL games How much more would it pay for the same games that Sky were going to get & had talks with BTS

Were they aware of any BT offer? If so, do you have a link?

you beat me to it.i don,t think ERC were aware.

It all seems a bit odd to me. Why wouldn't BT simply go to ERC, and make an offer? Maybe BT approached PRL about domestic games initially, and PRL pushed the limits to include coverage of Euro games? Be great to get some facts.

[Guest]

IIRC the PRL/BT Deal was announced before the SKY deal, which was announced after PRL/LNR gave notice that they were not going to renew the accord.Which means that unless the Sky deal does not include the PRL/LNR teams the ERC sold something that it didnt have,where as the PRL/BTS deal was  that if PRL teams played BTS would show it

The BT deal was announced before the Sky deal? Have you a link for that?

Even if true it doesn't really answer the question; were ERC aware of an offer being made by BT at the time? Was that offer exclusive to PRL, or was it possible that ERC could have negotiated a deal?

[HammerofThunor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2202334/BT-Vision-announce-new-rugby-deal.html

This says hours after the BT announcement the Sky announcement was made.

[HammerofThunor]

ERC were supposed to be very cozy with Sky and a bit 'lazy' looking around for better deals. It was raised in 2011 that they weren't getting the best deal but the ERC brushed it aside.

Second to last paragraph

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/nov/11/rugby-union-violent-breakaway-premiership

[Guest]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2202334/BT-Vision-announce-new-rugby-deal.html

This says hours after the BT announcement the Sky announcement was made.

Hi, Hammer. Thanks for the link.

It's difficult to know what to make of it. I have a few notions, but all grasping at air really. So ERC declare a SKY deal just a few hours after the BT announcement. The SKY deal wasn't cobbled together in a few hours, and so the question is, when were ERC first made aware of the BT deal, and when did they sign the SKY deal?

[Guest]

ERC were supposed to be very cozy with Sky and a bit 'lazy' looking around for better deals. It was raised in 2011 that they weren't getting the best deal but the ERC brushed it aside.

Second to last paragraph

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/nov/11/rugby-union-violent-breakaway-premiership

Yes, I had read that, and have no problem believing that maybe more revenue could have been provided for such a successful competition. Sometimes a kick in the pants is required.

[TJ]

The PRL have refused to give anyone details of the BT deal. The PRL tried to sell something that does not exist and that they had no right to sell. Bt must be somewhat dismayed at how its turned out and who will trust the PRL now?

[HammerofThunor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2202334/BT-Vision-announce-new-rugby-deal.html

This says hours after the BT announcement the Sky announcement was made.

Hi, Hammer. Thanks for the link.

It's difficult to know what to make of it. I have a few notions, but all grasping at air really. So ERC declare a SKY deal just a few hours after the BT announcement. The SKY deal wasn't cobbled together in a few hours, and so the question is, when were ERC first made aware of the BT deal, and when did they sign the SKY deal?

Well we can be pretty certain that the TV deal with Sky was signed after notice was given.

ERC said "It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June 2012 that the ERC would conclude a four year agreement with Sky Sports".

PRL said "No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC Board meeting."

I don't think anyone would lie openly so what would be an answer? At the board meeting was it agreed that TV deal would be explored? That a renewal with Sky would be progressed?

It all depends on what the notice really means. Does it mean the ERC is over unless a renewal is agreed? What basis was the Sky deal sold? If the ERC continues they have the contract? Or did they say since all members agreed the Sky deal (contested) the effectively agreed to continue the ERC (unlikely as this would have solved the problem).

I think the BT deal is straight forward in that it's for all English home games for any European competition post 2014. But that gives no wiggle room (probably deliberately). Whereas the Sky deal may be for the HEC and ACC, which is more specific. Pure speculation.

PRL have said the RFU have seen the BT contract. Remember it includes League stuff so they're not going to give the full details.

[HammerofThunor]

The PRL have refused to give anyone details of the BT deal.  The PRL tried to sell something that does not exist and that they had no right to sell.  Bt must be somewhat dismayed at how its turned out and who will trust the PRL now?

No the ERC sold something that doesn't exist. The PRL sold something that may exist. That's based on the facts that the ERC announced the deal was for the ERC competitions, that stop. The BT deal was for any future competitions.

Wasn't there a comic superhero that some film company had the rights to? No movie was made until 20 years were up and they could be sold to someone else and then it was made. There's nothing, in theory, wrong with the PRL agreeing a deal that is in effect "we will not take place in any European competition unless you have our rights".

[TJ]

But the PRL sold a european cup contest. the PRLs european cup contest is dead. It is not going to happen. So they sold the rights to something that does not exist. The ERCs european cup is going to happen. It just might not have some of the English and French clubs in it.

[HammerofThunor]

Well we don't KNOW what they sold. But the release was for any future English home game in Europe. So , no. They didn't sell a competition.

The ERC sold will not exist. It included 12 teams from the T14 and Jeff. That won't happen so nor can the competition. Filling with 2nd division teams (or regions with players from 2nd division) doesn't make it the same.

Also, he legal argument will be hat if these unions have their own competitions therefore there is nor reason to block the Franglo.

[TJ]

Maybe - but other sanctions are available such as the RFU stopping funding the breakaway, the french teams who do not own their grounds will have no where to play, players who play in the breakaway loose their chance to play internationals. Waht value would a franglo cup of 12 teams have?

The BT deal was for an awful lot more than the english home games or else how can the PRL state what money the others would earn from it?

[LondonTiger]

But the PRL sold a european cup contest.  the PRLs european cup contest is dead.  It is not going to happen.  So they sold the rights to something that does not exist.  The ERCs european cup is going to happen.  It just might not have some of the English and French clubs in it.

The rights that ERC sold guaranteed participation from elite English and French sides, despite them having already served notice to quit.

Sorry TJ but you are splitting hairs in your attempt to make one side good and one bad. PRL were wrong to try and negotiate the sale of home matches to a separate broadcaster. ERC were wrong to sell rights for something they did not possess.

[TJ]

ERC have made mistakes as well. If the BT deal was only for home metches how can the PRL say how much the non english clubs would get?

[LondonTiger]

The BT deal was for an awful lot more than the english home games or else how can the PRL state what money the others would earn from it?

it was only for English home matches, what they believed they had the right to sell (like other countries do where Sky Tv is not shown).

They then projected how much it would be worth to other countries if they came on board. Now bearing in mind the proposed deal for just English home games was worth more than the sum ERC gifted to Murdoch - it is easy to see that there was money for all. The issue of course is that while everyone would get more English clubs en masse (though not individually) would get a larger increase.

PRL should have been conciliatory. Mind for two years everyone refused to talk about things.

[broadlandboy]

Because they are willing to put into a central pot to be divided on a per team bases, it could be more depending on how much the other countries could sell their matches for

[Dubbelyew L Overate]

But the PRL sold a european cup contest.  the PRLs european cup contest is dead.  It is not going to happen.  So they sold the rights to something that does not exist.  The ERCs european cup is going to happen.  It just might not have some of the English and French clubs in it.

The rights that ERC sold guaranteed participation from elite English and French sides, despite them having already served notice to quit.

Sorry TJ but you are splitting hairs in your attempt to make one side good and one bad. PRL were wrong to try and negotiate the sale of home matches to a separate broadcaster. ERC were wrong to sell rights for something they did not possess.

Questions arising from that:

Would RFU, still part of ERC, have approved a Sky contract for Jeff teams, knowing that there was a serious risk of them not participating, having given notice?

How is "Elite" defined in the contract - is there wriggle room in the contract for English Championship clubs to satisfy the definition?

Notwithstanding that, would Sky accept Championship clubs without negotiating a cut in their payment to reflect a devalued tournament?


I'm not expecting any answers, but what answers there are would fairly significantly colour RFU's future actions, bearing in mind that they have spent the last 4-5 years grooming the Championship into a mirror of Jeff so that teams could seamlesssly swap from B&I Cup to Euro Cups.

[TJ]

I think the ERC has negotiating team with devolved power - so not every stakeholder has to be consulted at every moment as in general the right to negotiate finances has been given to a smaller group. The ERCs actions tho in selling to sky did not help at all.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

LT, a question for you, if you are able to answer/indeed know the answer? Given the timings around the announcement of the BT deal, the subsequent ERC Sky deal and the PRL & LNR announcement that they would not be continuing with ERC beyond 2014, is it fair to assume that both TV deals were probably already well in discussion and negotiation long before the PRL announcement? I suspect both sides may have been somewhat 'duplicitous'?

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

But the PRL sold a european cup contest.  the PRLs european cup contest is dead.  It is not going to happen.  So they sold the rights to something that does not exist.  The ERCs european cup is going to happen.  It just might not have some of the English and French clubs in it.

The rights that ERC sold guaranteed participation from elite English and French sides, despite them having already served notice to quit.

Sorry TJ but you are splitting hairs in your attempt to make one side good and one bad. PRL were wrong to try and negotiate the sale of home matches to a separate broadcaster. ERC were wrong to sell rights for something they did not possess.

Questions arising from that:

Would RFU, still part of ERC, have approved a Sky contract for Jeff teams, knowing that there was a serious risk of them not participating, having given notice?

How is "Elite" defined in the contract - is there wriggle room in the contract for English Championship clubs to satisfy the definition?

Notwithstanding that, would Sky accept Championship clubs without negotiating a cut in their payment to reflect a devalued tournament?


I'm not expecting any answers, but what answers there are would fairly significantly colour RFU's future actions, bearing in mind that they have spent the last 4-5 years grooming the Championship into a mirror of Jeff so that teams could seamlesssly swap from B&I Cup to Euro Cups.

Given what we know about the parlous state of Championship clubs' finances in England, dub, I would imagine that they would bite the hand of the Celtic and Italian unions, even with a reduced amount of Sky TV cash?

[HammerofThunor]

But the PRL sold a european cup contest.  the PRLs european cup contest is dead.  It is not going to happen.  So they sold the rights to something that does not exist.  The ERCs european cup is going to happen.  It just might not have some of the English and French clubs in it.

The rights that ERC sold guaranteed participation from elite English and French sides, despite them having already served notice to quit.

Sorry TJ but you are splitting hairs in your attempt to make one side good and one bad. PRL were wrong to try and negotiate the sale of home matches to a separate broadcaster. ERC were wrong to sell rights for something they did not possess.

Questions arising from that:

Would RFU, still part of ERC, have approved a Sky contract for Jeff teams, knowing that there was a serious risk of them not participating, having given notice?

How is "Elite" defined in the contract - is there wriggle room in the contract for English Championship clubs to satisfy the definition?

Notwithstanding that, would Sky accept Championship clubs without negotiating a cut in their payment to reflect a devalued tournament?


I'm not expecting any answers, but what answers there are would fairly significantly colour RFU's future actions, bearing in mind that they have spent the last 4-5 years grooming the Championship into a mirror of Jeff so that teams could seamlesssly swap from B&I Cup to Euro Cups.

Given what we know about the parlous state of Championship clubs' finances in England, dub, I would imagine that they would bite the hand of the Celtic and Italian unions, even with a reduced amount of Sky TV cash?

If the Championship sides get in and get the same relative amount as the PRL were getting that would be fantastic.

[Notch]

I saw this on another forum I have absolutely no idea whether or not it is true so don't jump down my throat but if it is true... well, the PRL have fecked up.

The BT deal has been leaked and it’s not nice reading if you’re an English rugby fan. Apparently, unless 4 or more tier 1 unions sign up to the new competition (which looks increasingly unlikely) the PRL get next to nothing, just the travel costs for the teams involved.. Also, the deal for Premiership games is contingent on the new comp being formed, again with four or more tier 1 nations signed up, otherwise the rights for the league games will be worth less than they were when SKY had them. There is a bonus to be paid every year for the new competition, but this is again conditional on the four or more tier 1 unions being involved. So again, less than four and they get zero. So, the PRL has played it’s hand and lost. The BT deal is predicated on the European Cup continuing as it was but under new management. The PRL have so alienated the other clubs through their mouthpieces on the BBC and on ESPNScrum, ( ESPN are FoxSports main rivals in America and Fox is of course owned by 21st Century Fox, formerly News International, who of course also own SKY, so they have a vested interest in destroying the ERC), that this is now highly unlikely. The IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIR have all stated that none of their teams will be playing in this new tournament. Who else would be included? The South Africans are tied into the Super 15 until 2015. Do the English teams have that much time?

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Wow, if true, that's more than a little awkward - McCafferty's head at the very least?

[MarcusHalberstram]

I just did a quick google search for key words like "BT leaked PRL" etc and could find the post Notch has quotes (from some blog called "Score") - but no reference anywhere else to any leaked details. Notch - is this "Score" where you saw it? Any other details or similar rumours? Anyone heard anything else about this?

[Notch]

No, no details and no reliable source. Hence why I disassociate myself from that... just sharing something thats been doing the rounds. It's a bit of a hand grenade to lob into the discussion but I make no claims that it's gospel truth or anything like that. It could be true but it can't be verified, but it is interesting to think about exactly what BT Sport want out of this.

BT Sports surely want what Sky has had for the past few years. The European Cup and the English Premiership. The European Cup is the pinnacle of the club game. PRL/LNR are confident they can deliver a new European Cup but the Celtic Unions are sticking together and won't be bullied. Are BT Sport interested in a weaker 2 nation Cup? Even without reading that supposed leak I would question whether they signed up for that. When saying they'll pay top dollar for English games in European competition, there is an assumption that there will be a European competition. If the PRL can't deliver that, what does that do for BT Sport?

[MarcusHalberstram]

Don't worry Notch - not going to blame you if it turns out to be nonsense, but thanks for bringing it up. I can't really believe it's true as it seems a bit too much of a risk for PRL to have made... but who knows!

[TJ]

But these guys who run many of the english clubs are risktakers - thats how they got to run successful business and get pots of money.

sounds plausible to me but as all I can find on it is the same piece on loads of fora it needs a large pinch of salt.

can we please put it all on this thread - let the other two die? copy and past across if need be.

[Notch]

Yeah, large pinch of salt. But I do think they need us more than they have initially let on. Their desire to destroy the HC was based on their pursuing a better deal but for the best deal I think they need the rest of Europe involved.

[Solid8]

But these guys who run many of the english clubs are risktakers - thats how they got to run successful business and get pots of money.

sounds plausible to me but as all I can find on it is the same piece on loads of fora it needs a large pinch of salt.

can we please put it all on this thread - let the other two die?  copy and past across if need be.

While it is true that to succeed in business you need to take risk, a truly effective businessman knows that to do this they must calculate and minimise risk before committing to it, so yes, they are risk takers but not in the sense that a gambler is. Given the acrimony surrounding the European Cup before they signed the deal with BT any sensible businessperson would have deemed that contract as unacceptably risky with no real way to minimise the risk that they are exposing themselves and not signed it.

If that "leak" is true, which I doubt, then the PRL deserves to fail as they have effectively bet themselves they can do a 1000 ft bungee jump using nothing but a single johnny.

[TJ]

I suspect as ever the truth is somewhere in the middle. However the lack of transparency from the PRL leads me to believe that the contract would contain clauses such as this and if it is such a good deal why not shout the details from the rooftops?

It would also go some way to explaining the ever more shrill and desperate sounding comments from the PRL chaps

It is intereting to me tha as tis has gone on the Rabo unions seem more and more confident and the PRL less and less. I really think they totally misjudged the opposition the PRL proposals would engender. The PRL thought all teams interests aligned and totally misread the situation.

It will be interesting to hear the next lot of pronouncements after this "leak"

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

But these guys who run many of the english clubs are risktakers - thats how they got to run successful business and get pots of money.

sounds plausible to me but as all I can find on it is the same piece on loads of fora it needs a large pinch of salt.

can we please put it all on this thread - let the other two die?  copy and past across if need be.

While it is true that to succeed in business you need to take risk, a truly effective businessman knows that to do this they must calculate and minimise risk before committing to it, so yes, they are risk takers but not in the sense that a gambler is.  Given the acrimony surrounding the European Cup before they signed the deal with BT any sensible businessperson would have deemed that contract as unacceptably risky with no real way to minimise the risk that they are exposing themselves and not signed it.  

If that "leak" is true, which I doubt, then the PRL deserves to fail as they have effectively bet themselves they can do a 1000 ft bungee jump using nothing but a single johnny.

Classic

[broadlandboy]

IMHO the PRL/LNR dont want to destroy the HEC just the ERC who dont seem fit for purpose

[TJ]

They want to destroy the ERC and to take control of the Euro cup while making it harder for Rabo teams to do well.

[Sponsored content]