New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

First topic message reminder :

I have heard it is:

6 French
6 English
7 Pro12 (1 guaranteed from each country, 3 on league position)
1 play-off (7th English and 7th French team)

Trying to find out is correct as we speak

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

I can't see the ERC being disbanded as it is owned by the Unions (not for profit organisations). It would do huge damage to the reputation of Rugby Union by basically 'welching' on a deal.

welching? u having a go at the welsh again? thats not nice.

no such thing as "welching" in a commercial arrangement. do you think SKY would have any loyalty beyond its ability to make money? you would be crazy to believe so, therefore why should the unions have loyalty to a clearly unfit-for-purpose ERC?

The Unions have responsibility for the ERC. Just check out who the Directors of the ERC are.

And the ERC/Sky deal had ERC Board approval.

come on bro, no-one has "responsibility" for ERC. ERC is a limited company of which there are shareholders. it looks after itself according to its corporate charter. and directors help it do whatever its corporate charter sets out, insofar as they are able, and not conflicted.

and as wheeler and bouscatel have made very clear, the sky extension was not discussed at the meeting they were at nor was it explicitly approved before prl/lnr gave notice. lets please not go over this again.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

I can't see the ERC being disbanded as it is owned by the Unions (not for profit organisations). It would do huge damage to the reputation of Rugby Union by basically 'welching' on a deal.

welching? u having a go at the welsh again? thats not nice.

no such thing as "welching" in a commercial arrangement. do you think SKY would have any loyalty beyond its ability to make money? you would be crazy to believe so, therefore why should the unions have loyalty to a clearly unfit-for-purpose ERC?

The Unions have responsibility for the ERC. Just check out who the Directors of the ERC are.

And the ERC/Sky deal had ERC Board approval.

come on bro, no-one has "responsibility" for ERC. ERC is a limited company of which there are shareholders. it looks after itself according to its corporate charter. and directors help it do whatever its corporate charter sets out, insofar as they are able, and not conflicted.

and as wheeler and bouscatel have made very clear, the sky extension was not discussed at the meeting they were at nor was it explicitly approved before prl/lnr gave notice. lets please not go over this again.

The assertions by Wheeler and Bouscatel have been contradicted by ERC and other union members.   It's correct that the Sky deal was not explicitly approved and in fact was still being negotiated when PRL/LNR gave notice.  Did the RFU and FFR give notice at the same time?   These four entities remained as part of the ERC structure and some of them attended subsequent board meetings where the Sky deal was discussed, and following the announcement of the BT deal, were part of the board meeting that ratified the ERC executives to conclude the Sky deal - which they were perfectly entitled to do.

quinsforever wrote:
yes. in a partnership, dissolving the partnership does not prevent pro-rata division of the liabilities onto the partners. in a limited company (imagine irish limited company is similar in principle) recourse stops at the assets of the limited company itself. look-through, in the sense i mean, implies that ERC is effectively fully transparent in terms of liabilities onto either its shareholders or entities that had not filed valid 2 yr notice to withdraw.

Think you're playing fast, and loose here  

In a very round-about way you appear to be describing Flow-through. Maybe I'm just not getting what you mean by 'Look through'.

Anywho, ok, what you seem to be saying is that the Unions are liable, but not PRL. The reason that PRL is not liable is that they gave notice. Right? If not feel free to correct me  
Problem with the above is that ERC consists of a board of directors, and PRL is represented on that board of directors, and, unless you know otherwise, PRL along with all else agreed to the renewal of the SKY contract. I don't know if that's fact, and if you are going to assert to the contrary then you would need to support that assertion with evidence.

I'm away to me bed, quins.

Laters  

ERC has been shown as not fit for purpose. Also why would the PRL trust ERC after ERC invited LNR but not PRL to a meeting. Sky need to be careful as if they upset the RFU they could lose the England internationals the next time they come up for renewal & I bet BTS would love to get those. Wouldn't surprise me if Sky used the situation to negotiate some long term deals with the Unions

broadlandboy wrote: Also why would the PRL trust ERC after ERC invited LNR but not PRL to a meeting.

Trust the ERC? That would be presumably after PRL negotiated a deal with BT sport primarily for their benefit and selling their cross-border rights, and deliberately frustrating/undermining the ERC deal with Sky that was being negotiated at the time. LNR had not done the same, or certainly, hadn't said so in public. One might not agree with what ERC did, but I could certainly understand why they did.

One bad turn deserves another, one might say.

notice to withdraw in two years time does not mean you give up your directorship in the intervening two years. they are completely unrelated.

and rfu membership is a complete red herring...an entirely new participation agreement needs to be negotiated, and unless the rabo unions want to give rfu representation in a competition with no prl teams, i wouldnt expect to see rfu represented in any erc v2

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/agreement-over-breakaway-european-tournament-still-a-good-way-off-1.1576147

Irish Times rubbishing Guardian Report.

quinsforever wrote:notice to withdraw in two years time does not mean you give up your directorship in the intervening two years. they are completely unrelated.

and rfu membership is a complete red herring...an entirely new participation agreement needs to be negotiated, and unless the rabo unions want to give rfu representation in a competition with no prl teams, i wouldnt expect to see rfu represented in any erc v2

Isn't the PRL's licence from the eRU up then, so technically they are not allowed to negotiate a tv deal (similar situation to why you think the ERC/Sky deal is dead in the water.

Also, there are newspaper reports that the Sky/ERC deal was approved at an ERC board meeting in June 2012 which Peter Wheeler was at (3 or 4 months before the PRL signed the deal with BT).

I'd imagine that McCafferty would have received minutes of that meeting even if he wasn't at it himself. How would anyone want to go into business with anyone so lacking in integrity. No one could trust him.

Business is the dirtiest game of them all.

Which is why the unions MUST remain in charge to protect the wider interests of the players and fans

TJ, if they weren't selling TV rights and the game weren't professional i would agree with you. bit hard to stuff the genie back into the bottle now though.

Sin é wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/agreement-over-breakaway-european-tournament-still-a-good-way-off-1.1576147

Irish Times rubbishing Guardian Report.

 all the journalists on both sides of this are floundering at the moment. starved of actual information they are all quoting unnamed sources, insiders, etc.

maybe we should keep an eye on what The Times says - at least they have an associated company who has some skin in the game with someone.

have just been on the times website. absolutely nothing about the HC/RCC. interesting. must mean negotiations are ongoing and probably rather delicate.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/agreement-over-breakaway-european-tournament-still-a-good-way-off-1.1576147

Irish Times rubbishing Guardian Report.

 all the journalists on both sides of this are floundering at the moment. starved of actual information they are all quoting unnamed sources, insiders, etc.

maybe we should keep an eye on what The Times says - at least they have an associated company who has some skin in the game with someone.

The Irish Times is the unofficial mouthpiece of the IRFU - Gerry Thornley enjoys the unfortunate nickname "Goebbels" - so treat anything he writes with a bit of caution - unless it's the next Irish team which he gets for his generous cooperation with the blazers

At least the Unions manage to stick to their budgets - unlike most of the PRL/LNR teams.

McCafferty cv: As you will see he Chaired the ERC Commercial Committe.
Profile

Mark McCafferty became the chief executive of the Premier Rugby Association in 2005.

Premier Rugby is the body that governs the 12 Guinness premiership clubs, and as such is at the very core of rugby in England.

Recent divides in the "club v country" debate have only served to emphasise the sway that the group has in the professional game, with the recent world record attendance for club games at Twickenham also highlighting their importance.

McCafferty succeeded Howard Thomas in 2005, having previously enjoyed success in the consumer sector. After spending the early part of his career with Midland Bank he spent eleven years with the Thomas Cook group.

Following this McCafferty joined Avis, where he remained until leaving in 2003 to pursue private investments.

His appointment in 2005 left the door open to improve the commercial footprint of the Guinness Premiership, with his expertise in branding being an important part of his suitability for the job.

A lucrative new deal with Guinness and new levels of exposure from Sky have been hallmarks of the success of Premier Rugby in exploiting the gains to be had in the modern, professional era.

Under McCafferty the Guinness Premiership has gone from strength to strength, despite criticisms from certain quarters over the influx of foreign players and the immovable stance employed over international commitments.

McCafferty also serves as commercial chairman of the ERC, the body that governs the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup.

---
The present ERC Commercial Committee has plenty of club representation including the PRL's own commercial director Dominic Hayes.

René Bouscatel Chairman (President of Toulouse)
Max Guazzini LNR (President of Stade Francais - having bankrupted it)
Andrea Rinaldo FIR
Mick Dawson IRFU (CEO of Leinster)
Dominic Hayes Premiership Rugby Previous experience was with World Wrestling entertainment  

It would seem that McCafferty/Gallagher have negotiated at most 1 functioning tv deal for tv rights in England and now they know everything.

brennomac wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/agreement-over-breakaway-european-tournament-still-a-good-way-off-1.1576147

Irish Times rubbishing Guardian Report.

 all the journalists on both sides of this are floundering at the moment. starved of actual information they are all quoting unnamed sources, insiders, etc.

maybe we should keep an eye on what The Times says - at least they have an associated company who has some skin in the game with someone.

The Irish Times is the unofficial mouthpiece of the IRFU - Gerry Thornley enjoys the unfortunate nickname "Goebbels" - so treat anything he writes with a bit of caution - unless it's the next Irish team which he gets for his generous cooperation with the blazers

Isn't that another way of saying good sources so maybe you should heed what he says.

Quins, I agree that The Times will probably be a good source of information given the vested interests involved there. It will be really interesting to see how this final stage plays out now. Well let's hope it is the final stage anyway. The only reason I have Sky is for the Autumn Internationals and HC and I know a lot of others in the same position - therefore I can see Sky losing out on subscriptions here which I must admit does not trouble me in the slightest.

quinsforever wrote:have just been on the times website. absolutely nothing about the HC/RCC. interesting. must mean negotiations are ongoing and probably rather delicate.

But the Guardian is already claiming victory for the PRL - not very delicate of them!

stub wrote:Quins, I agree that The Times will probably be a good source of information given the vested interests involved there. It will be really interesting to see how this final stage plays out now. Well let's hope it is the final stage anyway. The only reason I have Sky is for the Autumn Internationals and HC and I know a lot of others in the same position - therefore I can see Sky losing out on subscriptions here which I must admit does not trouble me in the slightest.

Even more reason for Sky to dig their heels in! They are not going to give up without a long nasty fight.

Sin é wrote:At least the Unions manage to stick to their budgets - unlike most of the PRL/LNR teams.

McCafferty cv: As you will see he Chaired the ERC Commercial Committe.
Profile

Mark McCafferty became the chief executive of the Premier Rugby Association in 2005.

Premier Rugby is the body that governs the 12 Guinness premiership clubs, and as such is at the very core of rugby in England.

Recent divides in the "club v country" debate have only served to emphasise the sway that the group has in the professional game, with the recent world record attendance for club games at Twickenham also highlighting their importance.

McCafferty succeeded Howard Thomas in 2005, having previously enjoyed success in the consumer sector. After spending the early part of his career with Midland Bank he spent eleven years with the Thomas Cook group.

Following this McCafferty joined Avis, where he remained until leaving in 2003 to pursue private investments.

His appointment in 2005 left the door open to improve the commercial footprint of the Guinness Premiership, with his expertise in branding being an important part of his suitability for the job.

A lucrative new deal with Guinness and new levels of exposure from Sky have been hallmarks of the success of Premier Rugby in exploiting the gains to be had in the modern, professional era.

Under McCafferty the Guinness Premiership has gone from strength to strength, despite criticisms from certain quarters over the influx of foreign players and the immovable stance employed over international commitments.

McCafferty also serves as commercial chairman of the ERC, the body that governs the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup.

---
The present ERC Commercial Committee has plenty of club representation including the PRL's own commercial director Dominic Hayes.

René Bouscatel Chairman (President of Toulouse)
Max Guazzini LNR (President of Stade Francais - having bankrupted it)
Andrea Rinaldo FIR
Mick Dawson IRFU  (CEO of Leinster)
Dominic Hayes Premiership Rugby  Previous experience was with World Wrestling entertainment  

It would seem that McCafferty/Gallagher have negotiated at most 1 functioning tv deal for tv rights in England and now they know everything.

Isn't it odd that some of those on the PRL/LNR side are quick to point to alleged commercial failings of the ERC when in fact the PRL's own McCafferty, and Hayes, are such prominent figures in the ERC Commercial Committee?

brennomac wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/agreement-over-breakaway-european-tournament-still-a-good-way-off-1.1576147

Irish Times rubbishing Guardian Report.

 all the journalists on both sides of this are floundering at the moment. starved of actual information they are all quoting unnamed sources, insiders, etc.

maybe we should keep an eye on what The Times says - at least they have an associated company who has some skin in the game with someone.

The Irish Times is the unofficial mouthpiece of the IRFU - Gerry Thornley enjoys the unfortunate nickname "Goebbels" - so treat anything he writes with a bit of caution - unless it's the next Irish team which he gets for his generous cooperation with the blazers

Unfortunately I have yet to come across a media outlet in this whole sorry affair who is trying to report on this in an unbiased fashion.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:have just been on the times website. absolutely nothing about the HC/RCC. interesting. must mean negotiations are ongoing and probably rather delicate.

But the Guardian is already claiming victory for the PRL - not very delicate of them!

i was referring to the TV negotiations. dont think SKY cares about how the the squabblers govern themselves.

Notch wrote:

brennomac wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/agreement-over-breakaway-european-tournament-still-a-good-way-off-1.1576147

Irish Times rubbishing Guardian Report.

 all the journalists on both sides of this are floundering at the moment. starved of actual information they are all quoting unnamed sources, insiders, etc.

maybe we should keep an eye on what The Times says - at least they have an associated company who has some skin in the game with someone.

The Irish Times is the unofficial mouthpiece of the IRFU - Gerry Thornley enjoys the unfortunate nickname "Goebbels" - so treat anything he writes with a bit of caution - unless it's the next Irish team which he gets for his generous cooperation with the blazers

Unfortunately I have yet to come across a media outlet in this whole sorry affair who is trying to report on this in an unbiased fashion.

not that surprising though TBH. most print media in the UK hates Murdoch. then there's the whole nationalistic angle. and there's also the soul of rugby vs let the market prevail angle. everyone has a axe to grind from some perspective.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:have just been on the times website. absolutely nothing about the HC/RCC. interesting. must mean negotiations are ongoing and probably rather delicate.

But the Guardian is already claiming victory for the PRL - not very delicate of them!

i was referring to the TV negotiations. dont think SKY cares about how the the squabblers govern themselves.

Sky will not want to alienate or upset the Unions. Don't forget the big buck are in televising International rugby.

*dropping the axe as quickly as I can behind my desk*

Me? Axe??!!!!

Okay, so we'll discuss things with words instead then...but it's dead boring - like.

Quiners has gone very quite since finding out who was on the ERC Commercial committee.


In other news - l'Equipe headline saying that a year out of European Rugby might be very good for Les Bleus in the season preceeding the World Cup.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Article/Et-si-l-europe-explosait/2481

Sin é wrote:Quiners has gone very quite since finding out who was on the ERC Commercial committee.


In other news - l'Equipe headline saying that a year out of European Rugby might be very good for Les Bleus in the season preceeding the World Cup.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Article/Et-si-l-europe-explosait/2481

LOL. you think i didnt know they were involved in ERC? how do you imagine prl knew what to ask from BT in terms of tv rights in order to break the whole thing open?

like i said...business is a dirty game...

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:Quiners has gone very quite since finding out who was on the ERC Commercial committee.


In other news - l'Equipe headline saying that a year out of European Rugby might be very good for Les Bleus in the season preceeding the World Cup.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Article/Et-si-l-europe-explosait/2481

LOL. you think i didnt know they were involved in ERC? how do you imagine prl knew what to ask from BT in terms of tv rights in order to break the whole thing open?

like i said...business is a dirty game...

You mean you were slagging the ERC Commerical Committee off when you knew that McCafferty & Gallagher were involved  

You probably won't understand this, but that kind of carry-on makes them untrustworthy. They want us to join some competition where they say we will get a lot more money, yet they have shown no one the details of the proposed BT contract.

You couldn't make it up.  

Sin é wrote:

stub wrote:Quins, I agree that The Times will probably be a good source of information given the vested interests involved there. It will be really interesting to see how this final stage plays out now. Well let's hope it is the final stage anyway. The only reason I have Sky is for the Autumn Internationals and HC and I know a lot of others in the same position - therefore I can see Sky losing out on subscriptions here which I must admit does not trouble me in the slightest.

Even more reason for Sky to dig their heels in! They are not going to give up without a long nasty fight.

True Sin - however they're going to want to hold on to the Autumn internationals too and as someone mentioned earlier they're not going to want to alienate parties such as the RFU by going in too hard over this. There is also a real danger (IMO) of them alienating the English subscriber base (which must make up a large slice of their revenue) if they handle things wrong here. Therefore they have a tricky needle to thread as do all parties here.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:Quiners has gone very quite since finding out who was on the ERC Commercial committee.


In other news - l'Equipe headline saying that a year out of European Rugby might be very good for Les Bleus in the season preceeding the World Cup.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Article/Et-si-l-europe-explosait/2481

LOL. you think i didnt know they were involved in ERC? how do you imagine prl knew what to ask from BT in terms of tv rights in order to break the whole thing open?

like i said...business is a dirty game...

You mean you were slagging the ERC Commerical Committee off when you knew that McCafferty & Gallagher were involved  

You probably won't understand this, but that kind of carry-on makes them untrustworthy. They want us to join some competition where they say we will get a lot more money, yet they have shown no one the details of the proposed BT contract.

You couldn't make it up.  

they said they are willing to GUARANTEE the amount of money to rabo teams. trust less necessary where guarantees being given out.

Nah...we'll take the prizes instead and generate our own money from them.
Besides, I get a weird feeling when a Rival league offers to 'fund' a ...rival League.

I'd prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money. I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

SecretFly wrote:'d prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

That is a massive point. Why would we sign up to a BT deal if we're not dealing with BT directly?

SecretFly wrote:Nah...we'll take the prizes instead and generate our own money from them.
Besides, I get a weird feeling when a Rival league offers to 'fund' a ...rival League.  

I'd prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

i agree, time for the ERC to go

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:'d prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

That is a massive point. Why would we sign up to a BT deal if we're not dealing with BT directly?

 the only way you get to deal with a broadcaster directly is if you have a bilateral deal. BT's financial interaction will be via the RCC with everyone.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nah...we'll take the prizes instead and generate our own money from them.
Besides, I get a weird feeling when a Rival league offers to 'fund' a ...rival League.  

I'd prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

i agree, time for the ERC to go

So why is BT hiding behind McCafferty?

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:'d prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

That is a massive point. Why would we sign up to a BT deal if we're not dealing with BT directly?

 the only way you get to deal with a broadcaster directly is if you have a bilateral deal. BT's financial interaction will be via the RCC with everyone.

No quins. I don't know what business planet you operate on but that's no explanation for BT hiding behind the PRL when they had a proposal for all of us.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nah...we'll take the prizes instead and generate our own money from them.
Besides, I get a weird feeling when a Rival league offers to 'fund' a ...rival League.  

I'd prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

i agree, time for the ERC to go

All that will happen is one set of men in suits will disappear to be replaced by another set of men in suits. Whether it's called the ERC or the RCC it will require people to run it and be run in the interests of the same people.

Except this new competition is a lot less fleshed out than what we have and involves much more complicated in terms of TV rights. If there is a suggestion that the men in suits be entirely from the clubs, it won't be allowed to happen.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:'d prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

That is a massive point. Why would we sign up to a BT deal if we're not dealing with BT directly?

 the only way you get to deal with a broadcaster directly is if you have a bilateral deal. BT's financial interaction will be via the RCC with everyone.

No quins. I don't know what business planet you operate on but that's no explanation for BT hiding behind the PRL when they had a proposal for all of us.

BT have a bilateral deal with PRL for the AP. no-one is hiding. pretty sure that BT's number is in the phone book LOL

stub wrote:

Sin é wrote:

stub wrote:Quins, I agree that The Times will probably be a good source of information given the vested interests involved there. It will be really interesting to see how this final stage plays out now. Well let's hope it is the final stage anyway. The only reason I have Sky is for the Autumn Internationals and HC and I know a lot of others in the same position - therefore I can see Sky losing out on subscriptions here which I must admit does not trouble me in the slightest.

Even more reason for Sky to dig their heels in! They are not going to give up without a long nasty fight.

True Sin - however they're going to want to hold on to the Autumn internationals too and as someone mentioned earlier they're not going to want to alienate parties such as the RFU by going in too hard over this. There is also a real danger (IMO) of them alienating the English subscriber base (which must make up a large slice of their revenue) if they handle things wrong here. Therefore they have a tricky needle to thread as do all parties here.

Are BT capable of broadcasting the England AI games in NZ, SA & Aus?

The RBS 6Ns company negotiates the 6Nations (in the same building as IRB, ERC & Celtic League). The British & Irish Lions are based in the RDS (Dublin) and they negotiate the Lions tv rights.

England were going to be kicked out of the 6Ns before becuase they went solo with Sky. I'd hope they learned their lesson then.

For the record - Rugby is just a time schedule filler for soccer & golf as far as both Sky & BT are concerned. From what I've seen, the soccer heads pretty much hate rugby in England, so they won't be bothered about any of this.

Right, so we as members of the RCC would have to approve the BT deal if we decide to join that tournament. Except a) the IRFU doesn't appear to have been offered a place on the board or whatever of this new tournament, just invited to enter teams and b) this deal seems to be done without our input anyway.

So obviously all of that sets the warning bells ringing. You can criticise the Celtic Unions all you want but until you realise that overtures and concessions have to be made to us to get us on board this won't go anywhere.

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nah...we'll take the prizes instead and generate our own money from them.
Besides, I get a weird feeling when a Rival league offers to 'fund' a ...rival League.  

I'd prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

i agree, time for the ERC to go

All that will happen is one set of men in suits will disappear to be replaced by another set of men in suits. Whether it's called the ERC or the RCC it will require people to run it and be run in the interests of the same people.

Except this new competition is a lot less fleshed out than what we have and involves much more complicated in terms of TV rights. If there is a suggestion that the men in suits be entirely from the clubs, it won't be allowed to happen.

what you have is a busted flush.

this is like watching re-runs of the magic roundabout.

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nah...we'll take the prizes instead and generate our own money from them.
Besides, I get a weird feeling when a Rival league offers to 'fund' a ...rival League.  

I'd prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

i agree, time for the ERC to go

All that will happen is one set of men in suits will disappear to be replaced by another set of men in suits. Whether it's called the ERC or the RCC it will require people to run it and be run in the interests of the same people.

Except this new competition is a lot less fleshed out than what we have and involves much more complicated in terms of TV rights. If there is a suggestion that the men in suits be entirely from the clubs, it won't be allowed to happen.

what you have is a busted flush.

this is like watching re-runs of the magic roundabout.

Yeah, what we have is a busted flush and what you have is a busted flush.

You're not gonna have a tournament until we come on board and we're not gonna have a tournament unless you come back on board. Let's not be so delusional as to suggest either tournament is going to get off the ground until a compromise is reached.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:'d prefer to see the money come directly from the people with the actual money.  I'm old fashioned like that... no preening middle-men in fancy suits.

That is a massive point. Why would we sign up to a BT deal if we're not dealing with BT directly?

 the only way you get to deal with a broadcaster directly is if you have a bilateral deal. BT's financial interaction will be via the RCC with everyone.

No quins. I don't know what business planet you operate on but that's no explanation for BT hiding behind the PRL when they had a proposal for all of us.

BT have a bilateral deal with PRL for the AP. no-one is hiding. pretty sure that BT's number is in the phone book LOL

Never mind the AP.  Nobody is talking about the AP.  AP is PRL's business.  The AP BT deal has absolutely nothing to do structurally with any external agreement between three Leagues and six Unions.  So that's an evader, quins.  

Back to square one.  Why is BT hiding behind McCafferty when it comes to offering Europe money for a European contest?  It's their money, not PRL's.  

To an outsider from one of those newly observed planets, it would appear to be a very suspicious set-up.  

Not only does BT give its full negotiating power to a single League - that happens to be a natural rival for fans and TV time with the other two Leagues.  But also, BT's chummy relationship with PRL opens up the prospect that more private and lucrative arrangements were made behind closed doors - person to person - to encourage vested interests in the debate to lobby vigourously in public for a BT conclusion.  Anyone declaring they are paid lobbyists in all this media feeding time at the zoo?  Will that finally come out?
So, you have a situation where one organisation (PRL) serves as both agent for BT in secret discussions and also this single organisation acts as their lobbyists in public?  And everybody is ordered not to smell a nicely paid-up rat or two in the cellar?  

Yeah, let's pretend we all believe each other and gloss over the truth.

Sin é wrote:

stub wrote:

Sin é wrote:

stub wrote:Quins, I agree that The Times will probably be a good source of information given the vested interests involved there. It will be really interesting to see how this final stage plays out now. Well let's hope it is the final stage anyway. The only reason I have Sky is for the Autumn Internationals and HC and I know a lot of others in the same position - therefore I can see Sky losing out on subscriptions here which I must admit does not trouble me in the slightest.

Even more reason for Sky to dig their heels in! They are not going to give up without a long nasty fight.

True Sin - however they're going to want to hold on to the Autumn internationals too and as someone mentioned earlier they're not going to want to alienate parties such as the RFU by going in too hard over this. There is also a real danger (IMO) of them alienating the English subscriber base (which must make up a large slice of their revenue) if they handle things wrong here. Therefore they have a tricky needle to thread as do all parties here.

Are BT capable of broadcasting the England AI games in NZ, SA & Aus?

The RBS 6Ns company negotiates the 6Nations (in the same building as IRB, ERC & Celtic League). The British & Irish Lions are based in the RDS (Dublin) and they negotiate the Lions tv rights.

England were going to be kicked out of the 6Ns before becuase they went solo with Sky. I'd hope they learned their lesson then.

For the record - Rugby is just a time schedule filler for soccer & golf as far as both Sky & BT are concerned. From what I've seen, the soccer heads pretty much hate rugby in England, so they won't be bothered about any of this.

I would think that it would not be beyond BT to sell rights to games to broadcasters in the SH TBH. I see your point about Lions Rugby though and if Sky have rights to this Lions will be a reason to turn on Sky Sports every Lions tour.

Regarding England (and France?) being kicked out of the HC - not sure that is being threatened is it?

As to your final point I think that there is some truth in that - however it is a very simplistic way of looking at things IMO. Many (armchair) football fans also enjoy rugby and vice versa. Also many football fans are very tribal and patriotic (not always an endearing quality I know) and therefore could be very sensitive to any perceived anti-English moves by Sky. In addition to this there is more choice now of where you can get your football, should that be your thing, so I still feel that Sky need to tread carefully here.

This place is funny once you are past caring...

mystiroakey wrote:This place is funny once you are past caring...

This is not funny!!! This is very serious!!! , although it can be funny  

Whatever our disputes at least we all agree that those of the PRL can't be trusted to look after any interests, but their own. Dirty business indeed....

We can agree on that Munchkin but I'm sure we may part company again if I were to venture the opinion that most of the involved parties are just looking after their own interests as they see them...  

As they all should do stub. Ain't no Celtic alliance out of altruism. It's about trying to hold strong for the best deal. Witness the vitriol when WRR made their statement Monday!

stub wrote:We can agree on that Munchkin but I'm sure we may part company again if I were to venture the opinion that most of the involved parties are just looking after their own interests as they see them...  

There's truth in that, I agree, stub   As much as each union should take care of its own interests to a certain extent, it is also in the interest of each union to encourage the success of all others, and, as far as this dispute is concerned, especially those other of the 6 Nations.  

Munchkin wrote:

stub wrote:We can agree on that Munchkin but I'm sure we may part company again if I were to venture the opinion that most of the involved parties are just looking after their own interests as they see them...  

There's truth in that, I agree, stub   As much as each union should take care of its own interests to a certain extent, it is also in the interest of each union to encourage the success of all others, and, as far as this dispute is concerned, especially those other of the 6 Nations.  

And I reckon everyone can work with that Munchkin  because I'm pretty sure than a strong set of six nations makes great economic sense for all concerned.