End in sight to Euro Mess?

First topic message reminder :

Reports in the Times today that agreement may be close for pan-European competitions for the next 8 seasons including Pro12/AP/T14 teams. (cannot link due to paywall).

It seems that in the last few weeks Ian Ritchie has been hosting a series of private meetings with all relevant parties to try and thrash out a deal. Interestingly PRLs representative in these meetings has been Bruce Craig - Mark McCafferty being sidelined?
Any way it seems that compromises have been reached on qualification methods, division of finances and management of the new competition. It would seem ERC are out, but the clubs will only have a say in the new competition not the full control they demanded. It even suggests we may see BT and SKY operate as joint broadcasters!!

Supposedly this new competition is almost agreed by all the relevant stakeholders (primarily the 6 Unions but also PRL/LNR). It may all be journalistic bluster - but I see no reason why a NewsCorp paper should be peddling this line if they did not believe it. After all until very recently their stories have always been heaping the utmost scorn on PRL/RFU.


So if a deal is struck that gives us a true set of pan-European competitions I can only be really pleased. I do hope that the story is true about the private meetings - as there has been far too much public posturing from people that only serves to antagonise. A public argument is much harder to heal than a private one.

So if true I guess congrats to Ian Ritchie who has kept RFU out of the limelight. Accused of sticking his head in the sands, it would suggest that he has actually been doing something useful away from the glare of the press and internet.

I need a shower now, cannot believe I just said something decent about the RFU.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:Look, the PRL split the money they earn in the HCup between all teams (i.e., looking out for their weaker clubs and at the expense of the Celts&Italian weaker teams).

Yet the celts&Italians are the baddies for wanting to hold onto as much money as possible for our weaker teams who are not going to help develop the game (unless its paying more money for south sea islanders to play in their competition and who will never represent their own country).

prl split the money because all 12 teams compete in europe. i know its easy to forget about the amlin when you dont have any teams in it.

there are no goodies or baddies. just clubs, unions and broadcasters trying to get the most money they can from euro club competition.

We have Amlin team/s in the Rabo, but it tends to be just the Dragons since the HEC/Amlin winner get one of their teams into the HEC.

quinsforever wrote:strength of negotiating position is based on 1) what people bring to the table 2) consequences of no deal at all. Upside and downside.

people can and are arguing about 1) all day long.

consequences of 2) no deal are pretty devastating for celtic unions finances and ability to run competitive pro teams.

thats why i think the prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger.

The Pro 12 nations bring an additional £40m to the table

all yours are in the HC  

malky1963 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:strength of negotiating position is based on 1) what people bring to the table 2) consequences of no deal at all. Upside and downside.

people can and are arguing about 1) all day long.

consequences of 2) no deal are pretty devastating for celtic unions finances and ability to run competitive pro teams.

thats why i think the prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger.

The Pro 12 nations bring an additional £40m to the table

as evidence are you going to quote your own "assumptions" from above?

A combined comp brings £40 million.How much would a comp without PRL/LNR be worth?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:Look, the PRL split the money they earn in the HCup between all teams (i.e., looking out for their weaker clubs and at the expense of the Celts&Italian weaker teams).

Yet the celts&Italians are the baddies for wanting to hold onto as much money as possible for our weaker teams who are not going to help develop the game (unless its paying more money for south sea islanders to play in their competition and who will never represent their own country).

prl split the money because all 12 teams compete in europe. i know its easy to forget about the amlin when you dont have any teams in it.

there are no goodies or baddies. just clubs, unions and broadcasters trying to get the most money they can from euro club competition.

We have Amlin team/s in the Rabo, but it tends to be just the Dragons since the HEC/Amlin winner get one of their teams into the HEC.

so riddle me this, should an english winner of the Amlin get 1/10th the money as Zebre do for competing in HC? is that fair?

quinsforever wrote:

malky1963 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:strength of negotiating position is based on 1) what people bring to the table 2) consequences of no deal at all. Upside and downside.

people can and are arguing about 1) all day long.

consequences of 2) no deal are pretty devastating for celtic unions finances and ability to run competitive pro teams.

thats why i think the prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger.

The Pro 12 nations bring an additional £40m to the table

as evidence are you going to quote your own "assumptions" from above?

The only assumption I made was the £20m for a French/English tournament - I think that might actually be generous especially if there is any truth in the 'travelling expenses' rumour.
Another way of looking at it is that if we go our separate ways and the HEC is just the 4 Pro 12 nations (and possibly some other teams - French regional/ English championship/ Georgia /Portugal etc) that competition will not be worth much either.
Let's be equally charitable and say it's worth £10m.

The key point is that, separate, in this example we are worth £30m - much less than the ERC figure of £62m. Both sides need each other.

malky1963 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:strength of negotiating position is based on 1) what people bring to the table 2) consequences of no deal at all. Upside and downside.

people can and are arguing about 1) all day long.

consequences of 2) no deal are pretty devastating for celtic unions finances and ability to run competitive pro teams.

thats why i think the prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger.

The Pro 12 nations bring an additional £40m to the table

And five of the last 8 winners.  Given that BTs interest is because of what they've been witnessing over the last number of years, it's a fair bet Pro12 team exploits through the HEC stages, and the fevered publicity and mad following of such sides, has added certain and distinct value to the figure offered by BT for a European competition now.  The truth is that it has been mostly PRO12 league sides that have been leading the European elite brand and adding value each year upon year.  

What PRL brings to the table has a direct link to the success of the HEC product to date... Pro12 sides central to that success to date.  PRL have a chequebook printed by Pro12 sides

agreed both sides need each other to make the most money. however, taking your numbers (not saying i agree with them), the COST to celtalia unions of no tournament would be a loss of £21m, while the cost to prl/lnr would be a loss of £11m.

prl/lnr are far far more able to absorb an £11m hit across 26 teams than celtalian unions absorb a loss of £21m.

hence prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger and they know it.

quinsforever wrote:strength of negotiating position is based on
1) what people bring to the table
2) consequences of no deal at all. Upside and downside.

people can and are arguing about 1) all day long.

consequences of 2) no deal are pretty devastating for celtic unions finances and ability to run competitive pro teams.

thats why i think the prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger.

What do Saracens bring to the table in comparison to say Munster?

Munster's jersey is the top selling rugby jersey in world rugby. That means that Munster have an awful lot of fans who more than likely like watching them play. Its simple arrogance that the PRL claim they are contributing the audience. The audience wouldn't be there if there were no Munster (and the Irish clubs) are not there to watch.

As the Ulster CEO said this morning on radio when the same thing was suggested, Ulster have survived 2 world wars and the recent 'Troubles', they would probably survive no Heineken Cup.

I'd doubt very much if Sky would let it go - be prepared for an awful lot of coverage from the Pro 12 which will shortly be known as the best league in the world. Sky has an ability to get it to other audiences around the world, particularly in the SH, unlike BT.

quinsforever wrote:agreed both sides need each other to make the most money. however, taking your numbers (not saying i agree with them), the COST to celtalia unions of no tournament would be a loss of £21m, while the cost to prl/lnr would be a loss of £11m.

prl/lnr are far far more able to absorb an £11m hit across 26 teams than celtalian unions absorb a loss of £21m.

hence prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger and they know it.

According to PRL, they're sick losing money...thus, the avowed need to take back a more healthy share of the profits from HEC?  I think in a professional rugby world, nobody can afford to lose money they're already getting...and brinkmanship that doesn't work is bad news for everyone as 11 million is 11 million.

i'm not picking on the IRFU, these quotes are illustrative or the reality facing WRU and SRU too.

from IRFU 2012-2013 annual report - treasurer's report:

"When non-cash items are stripped out the Union actually suffered an operating
cash deficit of some e4.5m."

"However the future outlook has in my opinion disimproved
significantly."

"Put simply because the Union spends
more than the cash revenue it generates in each year, if the Union
wish to maintain current expenditure levels then it will have to
borrow more money in the future to fund its operations and repay
this borrowing from a successful renewal of premium tickets in
2020/21."

"In my Report last year I referred to two of the key risks facing
the Union as being uncertainty surrounding general economic
conditions and the future of competitions in which Irish teams
compete. Both of these issues continue to be at the forefront of
our thinking."

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:agreed both sides need each other to make the most money. however, taking your numbers (not saying i agree with them), the COST to celtalia unions of no tournament would be a loss of £21m, while the cost to prl/lnr would be a loss of £11m.

prl/lnr are far far more able to absorb an £11m hit across 26 teams than celtalian unions absorb a loss of £21m.

hence prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger and they know it.

According to PRL, they're sick losing money...thus, the avowed need to take back a more healthy share of the profits from HEC?  I think in a professional rugby world, nobody can afford to lose money they're already getting...and brinkmanship that doesn't work is bad news for everyone as 11 million is 11 million.

couldnt agree more.

i guess we will find out whether it worked when the great and the good deign to let us know what they are "agreed"  

Let's hope reports are true. If so well done Ian Ritchie. As I said on another thread when he was being criticised for not speaking out against PRL it is to his credit that he has kept his mouth shut whilst other were shouting from the rooftops. Pity it takes an outsider from tennis to resolve issue.

Anyway, if a deal has been done behind closed doors... that's only really half the battle.  It'll then take another 10 to 15 weeks of behind-closed-doors heated debate to come up with an 'agreed' statement wording, where everybody can declare that they morally won the argument and that the other side or sides came to a realisation that they had to give way.

Nobody is going to accept any egg-on-face document and yet because of the passionate differences of opinions coming from many officials, some rugby body is certainly going to look less bullish and confident by the end of this crusade.

Oops...sorry. Then another 15 weeks to agree on who or what body issues the statement!

quinsforever wrote:i'm not picking on the IRFU, these quotes are illustrative or the reality facing WRU and SRU too.

from IRFU 2012-2013 annual report - treasurer's report:

"When non-cash items are stripped out the Union actually suffered an operating
cash deficit of some e4.5m."

"However the future outlook has in my opinion disimproved
significantly."

"Put simply because the Union spends
more than the cash revenue it generates in each year, if the Union
wish to maintain current expenditure levels then it will have to
borrow more money in the future to fund its operations and repay
this borrowing from a successful renewal of premium tickets in
2020/21."

"In my Report last year I referred to two of the key risks facing
the Union as being uncertainty surrounding general economic
conditions and the future of competitions in which Irish teams
compete. Both of these issues continue to be at the forefront of
our thinking."

The IRFU derive most of its income from international rugby (which funds the provinces). The deficit this year is due to not selling tickets IN ADVANCE, so is not a loss as such. People didn't buy the 10 year tickets because of the uncertainty of the economic situation and maybe not having 10-15K to lash out on a 10 year ticket in advance. They still might be able to spend 200-300 a year on matches though. Since there will be no more trips to France in the Heineken Cup, your average rugby supporters will have more cash to spend on international rugby.

SecretFly wrote:

malky1963 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:strength of negotiating position is based on 1) what people bring to the table 2) consequences of no deal at all. Upside and downside.

people can and are arguing about 1) all day long.

consequences of 2) no deal are pretty devastating for celtic unions finances and ability to run competitive pro teams.

thats why i think the prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger.

The Pro 12 nations bring an additional £40m to the table

And five of the last 8 winners.  Given that BTs interest is because of what they've been witnessing over the last number of years, it's a fair bet Pro12 team exploits through the HEC stages, and the fevered publicity and mad following of such sides, has added certain and distinct value to the figure offered by BT for a European competition now.  The truth is that it has been mostly PRO12 league sides that have been leading the European elite brand and adding value each year upon year.  

What PRL brings to the table has a direct link to the success of the HEC product to date... Pro12 sides central to that success to date.  PRL have a chequebook printed by Pro12 sides

Ireland has provided 5 of the last 8 winners - so lets just drop Italy, Scotland and Wales

There have been some unbelievably stupid arguments on here this afternoon. Just inventing numbers then arguing the toss about them - its just stunning

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

malky1963 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:strength of negotiating position is based on 1) what people bring to the table 2) consequences of no deal at all. Upside and downside.

people can and are arguing about 1) all day long.

consequences of 2) no deal are pretty devastating for celtic unions finances and ability to run competitive pro teams.

thats why i think the prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger.

The Pro 12 nations bring an additional £40m to the table

And five of the last 8 winners.  Given that BTs interest is because of what they've been witnessing over the last number of years, it's a fair bet Pro12 team exploits through the HEC stages, and the fevered publicity and mad following of such sides, has added certain and distinct value to the figure offered by BT for a European competition now.  The truth is that it has been mostly PRO12 league sides that have been leading the European elite brand and adding value each year upon year.  

What PRL brings to the table has a direct link to the success of the HEC product to date... Pro12 sides central to that success to date.  PRL have a chequebook printed by Pro12 sides

Ireland has provided 5 of the last 8 winners - so lets just drop Italy, Scotland and Wales

There have been some unbelievably stupid arguments on here this afternoon. Just inventing numbers then arguing the toss about them - its just stunning

I don't know if you are having a go at me regarding 'inventing numbers' but the £62m I quoted came from ERC.
I then made it very clear that the £20m I used for the Franglo Cup was an assumption - quite possibly a very generous assumption.
My point was to highlight the huge value added that arises when the 4 Pro 12 nations are involved - that is not a 'stupid argument'.

62 million is a hard number - 20 million is a complete fabrication -it may be more it could be worse for all we know but as far as I can see there is no way you can call that number remotely correctly.

Its like when someone else effectively claimed the all the businessmen behind the PRL were psychopaths because 5% of chief executives show psychopathic tendencies

quinsforever wrote:agreed both sides need each other to make the most money. however, taking your numbers (not saying i agree with them), the COST to celtalia unions of no tournament would be a loss of £21m, while the cost to prl/lnr would be a loss of £11m.

prl/lnr are far far more able to absorb an £11m hit across 26 teams than celtalian unions absorb a loss of £21m.

hence prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger and they know it.

Because the Celtic regions/provinces are supported by their Unions they can ride out a couple of rough years far better than the stand alone English teams living beyond their means.

You have it completely the wrong way round

lostinwales wrote:Ireland has provided 5 of the last 8 winners - so lets just drop Italy, Scotland and Wales

There have been some unbelievably stupid arguments on here this afternoon. Just inventing numbers then arguing the toss about them - its just stunning

I thought we were told to keep the debates to just "Leagues"?  Ain't that the PRL line? "You is a League, not a bundle of nations". Isn't that the poster?

I kinda know what Nation those winning PRO12 sides came from (I'm from Leinster) but that truth doesn't change the fact that those Irish sides play in the Pro12, not AP or Top14.  

Winning isn't the preserve of those who have won before.  Or is that the competition some folks want?

Today Leinster are the most successful Pro12 European side... tomorrow the torch might very well move on to an Italian side.  But we ban them before they get the chance?  Good thinking!  

Let's ban all sides that have never won it.  An Elite contest populated only by teams that have won HEC before?  That's 8 sides dropped from AP, a grand total of 11 sides dropped from Top14!!! - and 9 dropped from Pro12.  Hmmm, it might work - bigger BT share for the elites.  I'm game  

What's McCafferty's number before he changes his mind?

lostinwales wrote:62 million is a hard number - 20 million is a complete fabrication -it may be more it could be worse for all we know but as far as I can see there is no way you can call that number remotely correctly.

Its like when someone else effectively claimed the all the businessmen behind the PRL were psychopaths because 5% of chief executives show psychopathic tendencies

A bit weird though that the PRL were expecting that the PRO 12 teams would be willing to join in a competition that they were given very hazy figures for. No wonder the none of the Welsh regions jumped ship!

It would be interesting to hear what the less well financed PRL teams think of the PRL leadership of the Leicester & Sarries chairmen.

lostinwales wrote:62 million is a hard number - 20 million is a complete fabrication -it may be more it could be worse for all we know but as far as I can see there is no way you can call that number remotely correctly.

Its like when someone else effectively claimed the all the businessmen behind the PRL were psychopaths because 5% of chief executives show psychopathic tendencies

Yes - it's really like that

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Ireland has provided 5 of the last 8 winners - so lets just drop Italy, Scotland and Wales

There have been some unbelievably stupid arguments on here this afternoon. Just inventing numbers then arguing the toss about them - its just stunning

I thought we were told to keep the debates to just "Leagues"?  Ain't that the PRL line? "You is a League, not a bundle of nations". Isn't that the poster?

I kinda know what Nation those winning PRO12 sides came from (I'm from Leinster) but that truth doesn't change the fact that those Irish sides play in the Pro12, not AP or Top14.  

Winning isn't the preserve of those who have won before.  Or is that the competition some folks want?

Today Leinster are the most successful Pro12 European side... tomorrow the torch might very well move on to an Italian side.  But we ban them before they get the chance?  Good thinking!  

Let's ban all sides that have never won it.  An Elite contest populated only by teams that have won HEC before?  That's 8 sides dropped from AP, a grand total of 11 sides dropped from Top14!!! - and 9 dropped from Pro12.  Hmmm, it might work - bigger BT share for the elites.  I'm game  

What's McCafferty's number before he changes his mind?

Oh dear- someone took my 'dropping of nations' comment seriously. Maybe I should have also added   and  or maybe   or   or  or...

Maybe I am just weird - when I see well constructed arguments, supported by actual facts (rather than hearsay, highly selective quoting, wishful thinking, historical documents of questionable relevance and worst of all because something has been repeated on here a gazillion times so it MUST be true) then I take notice.

Half the time I read through these threads and just cringe and sometimes it brings out the silly side of me.

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:agreed both sides need each other to make the most money. however, taking your numbers (not saying i agree with them), the COST to celtalia unions of no tournament would be a loss of £21m, while the cost to prl/lnr would be a loss of £11m.

prl/lnr are far far more able to absorb an £11m hit across 26 teams than celtalian unions absorb a loss of £21m.

hence prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger and they know it.

Because the Celtic regions/provinces are supported by their Unions they can ride out a couple of rough years far better than the stand alone English teams living beyond their means.

You have it completely the wrong way round

ok good. thanks for setting me straight on that one

 

Sin é wrote:

lostinwales wrote:62 million is a hard number - 20 million is a complete fabrication -it may be more it could be worse for all we know but as far as I can see there is no way you can call that number remotely correctly.

Its like when someone else effectively claimed the all the businessmen behind the PRL were psychopaths because 5% of chief executives show psychopathic tendencies

A bit weird though that the PRL were expecting that the PRO 12 teams would be willing to join in a competition that they were given very hazy figures for. No wonder the none of the Welsh regions jumped ship!

It would be interesting to hear what the less well financed PRL teams think of the PRL leadership of the Leicester & Sarries chairmen.

It will be very interesting to see the media coverage and financial deals that come out of this if it works out. I would think if Sky come out as the larger broadcaster and BT are restricted to English teams not playing celts and Italians that BTs interest will wither fast.

lostinwales wrote:Oh dear- someone took my 'dropping of nations' comment seriously. Maybe I should have also added   and  or maybe   or   or  or...

Maybe I am just weird - when I see well constructed arguments, supported by actual facts (rather than hearsay, highly selective quoting, wishful thinking, historical documents of questionable relevance and worst of all because something has been repeated on here a gazillion times so it MUST be true) then I take notice.

Half the time I read through these threads and just cringe and sometimes it brings out the silly side of me.

You were joking about the 'dropping of nations'???!!!!!!!!!!!

You were messing with a serious topic?
You were sneering and jibing without relevant facts, figures and percentages backing you up?
You were havin' a larf in the midst of all this 606 HEC related angst, peevishment, bad grammar and no incriminating documentary proof from Julian Assange (who couldn't break into PRL offices cause he got delayed in some Embassy in London)?
You're taking none of this global-warming levels of bile and spluttering from us lot seriously???

You naughty,naughty boy!  You go down a straight 7% on your last 606 report.  You are cruising close to a ban now unless you can find 37.42% of the fine you'll have to pay for getting back in.

I was so so serious about my Elitist of the Elite Elite Euro Meritocratic Contest of Best Ever Heineken Cup Winners Cup.  And still want McCafferty's number if someone has it close at hand.

Like all of us, I sincerely hope this rumour (?) is accurate and we are in the end game.

But I hope it goes for one more week with all the angst, emotional ejaculations, factually inaccurate orgasms, the extrapolated nonsense from nonsensical press releases made by the nonsensical people, and the occasional humour.
Why?
Because I am still out of work and this keeps me entertained (somewhat), at least its riveting like watching a car wreck.

On the other hand, the insults, thinly veiled personal and national dislike can go scratch.

maestegmafia wrote:

Sin é wrote:

lostinwales wrote:62 million is a hard number - 20 million is a complete fabrication -it may be more it could be worse for all we know but as far as I can see there is no way you can call that number remotely correctly.

Its like when someone else effectively claimed the all the businessmen behind the PRL were psychopaths because 5% of chief executives show psychopathic tendencies

A bit weird though that the PRL were expecting that the PRO 12 teams would be willing to join in a competition that they were given very hazy figures for. No wonder the none of the Welsh regions jumped ship!

It would be interesting to hear what the less well financed PRL teams think of the PRL leadership of the Leicester & Sarries chairmen.

It will be very interesting to see the media coverage and financial deals that come out of this if it works out. I would think if Sky come out as the larger broadcaster and BT are restricted to English teams not playing celts and Italians that BTs interest will wither fast.

BT have already got the rights to the English teams home games, no matter who the opposition is so not sure how you are getting to that one. If Sky do a deal no doubt it will be for the Rabo teams home games. The only part I guess which would be up for grabs would be the French home games which would no doubt be put up for sale by whoever buys their rights. My money would be on BT picking them up since they already have a deal with the T14 for their league games but you never know.

Toohey wrote:BT have already got the rights to the English teams home games, no matter who the opposition is so not sure how you are getting to that one.

BT? Not true. The IRFU sold all Aviva Premiership European club home game rights to TG4.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:agreed both sides need each other to make the most money. however, taking your numbers (not saying i agree with them), the COST to celtalia unions of no tournament would be a loss of £21m, while the cost to prl/lnr would be a loss of £11m.

prl/lnr are far far more able to absorb an £11m hit across 26 teams than celtalian unions absorb a loss of £21m.

hence prl/lnr negotiating position is stronger and they know it.

Because the Celtic regions/provinces are supported by their Unions they can ride out a couple of rough years far better than the stand alone English teams living beyond their means.

You have it completely the wrong way round

ok good. thanks for setting me straight on that one

 

HAPPY TO OBLIGED  

Seriously I am fairly knowledge on the figures for Ulster and trust me we are very well placed to ride out a couple of seasons of European rugby as is, I believe, Irish rugby as a whole.

SecretFly wrote:

Toohey wrote:BT have already got the rights to the English teams home games, no matter who the opposition is so not sure how you are getting to that one.

BT?  Not true.  The IRFU sold all Aviva Premiership European club home game rights to TG4.  

Yawn.

True. Got the constructed arguments and actual facts right here.

[quote="maestegmafia"]

Sin é wrote:

lostinwales wrote:62 million is a hard number - 20 million is a complete fabrication -it may be more it could be worse for all we know but as far as I can see there is no way you can call that number remotely correctly.

Its like when someone else effectively claimed the all the businessmen behind the PRL were psychopaths because 5% of chief executives show psychopathic tendencies

A bit weird though that the PRL were expecting that the PRO 12 teams would be willing to join in a competition that they were given very hazy figures for. No wonder the none of the Welsh regions jumped ship!

It would be interesting to hear what the less well financed PRL teams think of the PRL leadership of the Leicester & Sarries chairmen.

It will be very interesting to see the media coverage and financial deals that come out of this if it works out. I would think if Sky come out as the larger broadcaster and BT are restricted to English teams not playing celts and Italians that BTs interest will wither fast.[/quote]
Hmm. BT is not really into short termism. The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

It will be very interesting to see the media coverage and financial deals that come out of this if it works out. I would think if Sky come out as the larger broadcaster and BT are restricted to English teams not playing celts and Italians that BTs interest will wither fast..

And Sky would be restricted to Celtalian teams not playing the English, so who will have the biggest audience?

Makes no difference in the end though because BT are interested only in Broadband take up in the UNITED KINGDOM (not Italy, not Eire and not France), so you look at the relative populations and see which market that ANY firm that's going for volume will be concentrating on.

TrailApe wrote:

It will be very interesting to see the media coverage and financial deals that come out of this if it works out. I would think if Sky come out as the larger broadcaster and BT are restricted to English teams not playing celts and Italians that BTs interest will wither fast..

And Sky would be restricted to Celtalian teams not playing the English, so who will have the biggest audience?

Makes no difference in the end though because BT are interested only in Broadband take up in the UNITED KINGDOM (not Italy, not Eire and not France), so you look at the relative populations and see which market that ANY firm that's going for volume will be concentrating on.

That is the biggest worry about BTs involvement from the start. They can drop rugby as quickly as they picked it up. It would take them their full term to recoup their prem only investment. Surely they will want to renegotiate that £152m offer if they don't get Europe too

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Oh dear- someone took my 'dropping of nations' comment seriously. Maybe I should have also added   and  or maybe   or   or  or...

Maybe I am just weird - when I see well constructed arguments, supported by actual facts (rather than hearsay, highly selective quoting, wishful thinking, historical documents of questionable relevance and worst of all because something has been repeated on here a gazillion times so it MUST be true) then I take notice.

Half the time I read through these threads and just cringe and sometimes it brings out the silly side of me.

You were joking about the 'dropping of nations'???!!!!!!!!!!!

You were messing with a serious topic?
You were sneering and jibing without relevant facts, figures and percentages backing you up?
You were havin' a larf in the midst of all this 606 HEC related angst, peevishment, bad grammar and no incriminating documentary proof from Julian Assange (who couldn't break into PRL offices cause he got delayed in some Embassy in London)?
You're taking none of this global-warming levels of bile and spluttering from us lot seriously???

You naughty,naughty boy!  You go down a straight 7% on your last 606 report.  You are cruising close to a ban now unless you can find 37.42% of the fine you'll have to pay for getting back in.

I was so so serious about my Elitist of the Elite Elite Euro Meritocratic Contest of Best Ever Heineken Cup Winners Cup.  And still want McCafferty's number if someone has it close at hand.

Thank you, Too easy to loose sight of the important stuff sometimes...

TrailApe wrote:

It will be very interesting to see the media coverage and financial deals that come out of this if it works out. I would think if Sky come out as the larger broadcaster and BT are restricted to English teams not playing celts and Italians that BTs interest will wither fast..

And Sky would be restricted to Celtalian teams not playing the English, so who will have the biggest audience?

Makes no difference in the end though because BT are interested only in Broadband take up in the UNITED KINGDOM (not Italy, not Eire and not France), so you look at the relative populations and see which market that ANY firm that's going for volume will be concentrating on.

One: Not everyone in a nation tunes into rugby.

Two: Everyone always knew that BT has interests only in the Broadband take up in the 'United Kingdom' (Wales/Scotland with Sky?) - thus its arguably biased approach to an improvement of English rugby strength in any future contest (PRL acting as it's agent at the talks).

Three: Italy and France have at least as many bums-on-seat as England - each.  Not everyone in a nation tunes into rugby but potential for juicy growth in those rugby watching numbers is I'd say much better in a place like Italy than England.

BT would like the lot - of course they would, it's what they hoped for.  Maybe they'll get it, maybe they won't.  They'll feel a little bit down in themselves if the grand plan didn't work this time and has to be re-jigged for a future attempt.

Now firstly I don't think BT are here for a smash and grab operation. They are in it for the long term because Broadband is the main battleground in the comms industry at the minute.

Communications and Broadcasting are become increasingly intertwine, you can watch the telly on your computer, your phone, your notebook etc.

Its all about voice and data. BT only operate a broadband network in England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland and that's where they arre focussed and of these entities the one with the biggest population is England.

Yes I agree that France will have a large demographic that will be interested in Rugby, more so than England and if the Italians ever get intersted in Rugby the skys the limit.

However BT will not be getting broadband rental from any of these countries and at the end of the day that's all they are interested in.


Of course in the European Communications arena really does become a free market, BT's target audience may change, however I think that's a long way down the line as some counties will not tolerate competition in their communications system.

So fr better ot worse, its England and English rugby that's attracting BT's £££.

Mainly worse as given a free hand, they'll gladly broadcast a European tournament that favours the PRL sides heavily in its construction because that is where they want to target their product. They're not just interested in rugby in England- Glasgow and Edinburgh have a shirt-sponsorship deal with them and they also sponsor Ulster- but their anglocentric approach to European rugby has already upset the balance of power and endangered the future of European rugby.

I'd much prefer European rugby to stay on Sky, who have shown more interest in the product as a whole instead of trying to just buy one aspect of it and creating a massive power struggle in the process.

Notch wrote:Mainly worse as given a free hand, they'll gladly broadcast a European tournament that favours the PRL sides heavily in its construction because that is where they want to target their product. They're not just interested in rugby in England- Glasgow and Edinburgh have a shirt-sponsorship deal with them and they also sponsor Ulster- but their anglocentric approach to European rugby has already upset the balance of power and endangered the future of European rugby.

I'd much prefer European rugby to stay on Sky, who have shown more interest in the product as a whole instead of trying to just buy one aspect of it and creating a massive power struggle in the process.

Notch, In general I agree with main point, but not completely sure.  I should preface that I am not in favour of an unregulated communications market in any way.  Communication in all its forms is critical for the country security and economy, and should be looked in that light  - a national priority for the UK.  So I agree BT should not be given a free hand.  Coverage needs to be as fair as possible and negotiated into any contract.  I am not sure which regulatory authority would have input here.   BUt I absolutely agree with your main point.

On the other hand, BT are getting involved with Rugby as part of their strategy to enter the sports market.  I can't see any reason for them to have an agenda to upset the sport.  To be fair, I don't think that's your point.  In fact I don't think they look at this as anything but signing up the parts of a sport which are contractually available so they can grow their network.  Regardless of what many people on 606 and elsewhere, feel, the BT lawyers must have been satisfied they are on pretty firm ground.  

Where I am not sure we agree is your statement that BT are going in with a strategy to acquire parts and then create the massive power struggle (if I interpreted your comment incorrectly here, please let me know, mate.  Not trying to slime you).  I think the power struggle has existed for a long, long time and BT is merely one of the players getting in late.  I believe their interests in growing their sports network jives well with the timing of the EuroCup 'negotiations'.  Nothing more here.

Final point about Sky.  If I remember, they were a part of facilitating the transition to professional Rugby with Super Rugby.  They have been involved for a long time and have huge interests in Rugby, though not so much financially compared to their interests in other, larger sports.  I find it hard to satisfy myself they have the best interests of Rugby at heart or whether they simply look to protect a small but profitable part of their portfolio which they have had for a long time.  Maybe the distinction does not really matter?  

Am I explaining myself clearly, or off base again?

Notch wrote:Mainly worse as given a free hand, they'll gladly broadcast a European tournament that favours the PRL sides heavily in its construction because that is where they want to target their product. They're not just interested in rugby in England- Glasgow and Edinburgh have a shirt-sponsorship deal with them and they also sponsor Ulster- but their anglocentric approach to European rugby has already upset the balance of power and endangered the future of European rugby.

I'd much prefer European rugby to stay on Sky, who have shown more interest in the product as a whole instead of trying to just buy one aspect of it and creating a massive power struggle in the process.

they have a money-centric approach to rugby, just like sky do. i like most people trust that this is sufficient to encourage good, impartial long-term coverage of the sport.

ERC agreed with you that they wanted the status quo to remain with SKY, and thus they undersold the project's commercial potential

which is a major reason we are here. it was always about the money.

This reminds me more of the colossal American F-up more and more every day, except I'm not sure which side is the Tea Party

ChequeredJersey wrote:This reminds me more of the colossal American F-up more and more every day, except I'm not sure which side is the Tea Party

Tea Party = rednecks, hard core right wing, the cause of the current American problem.

doctor_grey wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:This reminds me more of the colossal American F-up more and more every day, except I'm not sure which side is the Tea Party

Tea Party = rednecks, hard core right wing, the cause of the current American problem.

lets not go there. one could equally argue that the tea party are simply an embodiment (party-politically speaking) in the US of a fairly widely held view that government is just too darned big. and lets not forget any seats they hold came about in popular votes. no jobs for mates like JP Lux and his ilk.

how can they be a problem if they are a product of the system? either they are just a part of the body politic in action, or you are just saying you sympathise with the democrats, in which case the Tea party are your problem, not the problem.

and lets not kid ourselves, democrats, republicans and tea-party republicans are all believers in the free market compared to many in this debate.

nice work drawing in US politics - as if we dont have enough to argue  

You are probably right. CJ did make a good observation, though.

There is an interesting parallel here: When there is a failure to negotiate in good faith, or one group, even a minority, attempts to impose unrealistic goals, everything and everyone fails. Kind of makes Rugby look simple, no?

But, as you said, let's move on............

About the American 'problem'.  Max Keiser, as usual, put the real deal before us when he shouted out that it's not so surprising that mayhem rules in Washington...all these Senators are stockmarket operators....they're gambling on the 'crisis'. Simples.

And lo and behold, we had a big market rebounce a lttle earlier as the markets began to 'sense' that senators are about to do a deal, having made a little pocket money on the side.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

Try thinking about what you write before you type. Then your post might make some sense...! Are you a dyslexic?

Maybe you should also read the post you are replying to a few times, to make sure you understand what other people are talking about too...!