PRO12 has new Managing Director and he isn't Irish :D :yahoo:

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Marty, your not interested in his comment regarding Australian involvement in the process or neutrality then...?

Hines seems to be saying that he is neutral,....

I read it pretty much the opposite......

Hmmmm... The headline yesterday was something like 'Scotland Pour Cold Water on Claim of bias'. Think that's the why it should be read.

But I'm an arrogant gimp, so don't take my word for it

(note just cut all the quotes down for space)

If there were no Claims Of Bias, then the SRU would not have needed to poor cold water on them, no??


note: almost at that magic number of posts when the mods come and lock down the thread

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And yet as I've said they had a choice. Semantics but there we are.

I'm sorry it's not a choice, without the rugby S4C would lose hundreds of thousands of viewers over a year. It was make up, or go bust. That is not a choice.

How would S4C go bust without the viewers?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And yet as I've said they had a choice. Semantics but there we are.

I'm sorry it's not a choice, without the rugby S4C would lose hundreds of thousands of viewers over a year. It was make up, or go bust. That is not a choice.

How would S4C go bust without the viewers?

I doubt they would go bust, but they would lose millions in advertising if nobody was watching the channel. I can count on one hand the amount of times I watch S4C per week and I am a Welsh speaker. I will watch the odd documentary, or I will watch Jonathan now and again, but I will watch the rugby on it whenever I can, and I bet there are thousands more who cannot speak Welsh who live in Wales but watch S4C just for the rugby, if the rugby went from S4C then that channel would be up the creek.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And yet as I've said they had a choice. Semantics but there we are.

I'm sorry it's not a choice, without the rugby S4C would lose hundreds of thousands of viewers over a year. It was make up, or go bust. That is not a choice.

How would S4C go bust without the viewers?

I doubt they would go bust, but they would lose millions in advertising if nobody was watching the channel. I can count on one hand the amount of times I watch S4C per week and I am a Welsh speaker. I will watch the odd documentary, or I will watch Jonathan now and again, but I will watch the rugby on it whenever I can, and I bet there are thousands more who cannot speak Welsh who live in Wales but watch S4C just for the rugby, if the rugby went from S4C then that channel would be up the creek.

LD, are S4C not mostly publically funded though?

Also I remember there were problems before with a plenty of programmes on the channel getting no viewers and its still going. The rugby though is the biggest draw and would hurt it if they lost it though their statement seems to indicate they may walk away

I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

It would also mean a massive loss in TV revenue.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

It would also mean a massive loss in TV revenue.

The current revenue is distributed equally, an exclusive deal would be worth more than the current deal especially if Sky are happy with the ratings the games pull in. The league also have the added bonus of Sky need content, BT have already renewed with the AP and taken the Champions League of them and the PL is under threat too

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

It would also mean a massive loss in TV revenue.

The current revenue is distributed equally, an exclusive deal would be worth more than the current deal especially if Sky are happy with the ratings the games pull in. The league also have the added bonus of Sky need content, BT have already renewed with the AP and taken the Champions League of them and the PL is under threat too

The regions are getting the equivalent of 10,000 people per home game in tele money from the free to air broadcasters at the moment, if that is matched by one pay per view broadcaster then fine, but I do not think one broadcaster will pay the equivalent of 3 broadcasters.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

It would also mean a massive loss in TV revenue.

The current revenue is distributed equally, an exclusive deal would be worth more than the current deal especially if Sky are happy with the ratings the games pull in. The league also have the added bonus of Sky need content, BT have already renewed with the AP and taken the Champions League of them and the PL is under threat too

The regions are getting the equivalent of 10,000 people per home game in tele money from the free to air broadcasters at the moment, if that is matched by one pay per view broadcaster then fine, but I do not think one broadcaster will pay the equivalent of 3 broadcasters.

You're doing the wrong sort of maths

marty2086 wrote:
You're doing the wrong sort of maths

I am only quoting what was told by Roger Lewis when he was in charge, so what maths would you like me to do ?

Funny how most things he said you dismissed

You say three broadcasters is worth more than one, forgetting that the one is Sky who have deep pockets. An exclusive deal would be worth more because the Pro12 restrict what Sky can have to also accommodate the Free to Air broadcasters. Sky wanted more than they are getting.

Given how BT are operating they may also put themselves forward to gain more live sport/screw Sky/call themselves the home of rugby creating a bidding war.

Its not about how many are paying but how many want to pay

marty2086 wrote:Funny how most things he said you dismissed

You say three broadcasters is worth more than one, forgetting that the one is Sky who have deep pockets. An exclusive deal would be worth more because the Pro12 restrict what Sky can have to also accommodate the Free to Air broadcasters. Sky wanted more than they are getting.

Given how BT are operating they may also put themselves forward to gain more live sport/screw Sky/call themselves the home of rugby creating a bidding war.

Its not about how many are paying but how many want to pay

So you are surmising then ? Why would Sky pay anymore than they already are ? It's not as if we offer a better product than anybody else. If it all works out in you fantasy world of channels outbidding each other for the Pro12 then fine, I am with you, but at the moment we have numerous channels paying to air the Pro12 and unless that is matched then our teams will lose out.

What proof do you have that Sky will pay more than the 5 million a year they pay now. To get more they will have to match what ALL the other stations are paying, I just cannot see that happening.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Funny how most things he said you dismissed

You say three broadcasters is worth more than one, forgetting that the one is Sky who have deep pockets. An exclusive deal would be worth more because the Pro12 restrict what Sky can have to also accommodate the Free to Air broadcasters. Sky wanted more than they are getting.

Given how BT are operating they may also put themselves forward to gain more live sport/screw Sky/call themselves the home of rugby creating a bidding war.

Its not about how many are paying but how many want to pay

So you are surmising then ? Why would Sky pay anymore than they already are ? It's not as if we offer a better product than anybody else. If it all works out in you fantasy world of channels outbidding each other for the Pro12 then fine, I am with you, but at the moment we have numerous channels paying to air the Pro12 and unless that is matched then our teams will lose out.

What proof do you have that Sky will pay more than the 5 million a year they pay now. To get more they will have to match what ALL the other stations are paying, I just cannot see that happening.

Why would Sky pay more to show more games? Really?

Exclusive content is worth more than non exclusive content and I threw in the mention of BT because they are trying to take apart Sky so its not a fantasy merely a competitive market, look up what happened with the most recent La Liga tv deal.

It all depends on the numbers Sky are drawing for the games, which for the final was higher than the AP got and if BT see it as being worth spending the money but if Sky stick with their current lot, basic economics and inflation suggest that the next deal will be worth more than £5m

marty2086 wrote:look up what happened with the most recent La Liga tv deal

The Pro12 is not La Liga, it is not even in the same solar system.

marty2086 wrote:It all depends on the numbers Sky are drawing for the games, which for the final was higher than the AP got and if BT see it as being worth spending the money but if Sky stick with their current lot, basic economics and inflation suggest that the next deal will be worth more than £5m

Again you are surmising, you do not have a time machine or a crystal ball, so how can you tell if there will be a bidding war ? I reckon if BT wanted the Pro12 they would have paid for it already, but that would be me surmising. I cannot see Sky paying a lot more for exclusive rights, not enough to make up the difference that BBC Wales pay, and S4C pay anyway.

marty2086 wrote:

The current revenue is distributed equally, an exclusive deal would be worth more than the current deal especially if Sky are happy with the ratings the games pull in. The league also have the added bonus of Sky need content

Sky currently pay £5m to show 1 or 2 games a weekend. The current deal is worth £11.5m.

Would sky really pay an extra £7m odd just to screen an extra 5 or 6 matches?

Plus Sky and BT are about at their limit for what is a minority sport. They aren't there to subsidise, they want to make money.

LordDowlais wrote:The Pro12 is not La Liga, it is not even in the same solar system.

I said look at the deal, I never said they were comparable. For the first time in the UK they were able to put it out for bidding so much so that the company running it tried bending the rules to drive the price and messed it up in the end.

LordDowlais wrote:Again you are surmising, you do not have a time machine or a crystal ball, so how can you tell if there will be a bidding war ? I reckon if BT wanted the Pro12 they would have paid for it already, but that would be me surmising. I cannot see Sky paying a lot more for exclusive rights, not enough to make up the difference that BBC Wales pay, and S4C pay anyway.

What I have said is based on knowing a bit about business and economics along with history.

Sky have the rights to 33 games a season which is also limited to one game a season between two sides during the regular season. Exclusive rights would give them the rights to all 135 so paying at least 3 times for getting more than 3 times what they currently get isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

marty2086 wrote: which is also limited to one game a season between two sides during the regular season.

That's not correct. There were home and away fixtures between the same teams last season that sky televised.

I wouldn't have thought the money is there to make it a much better deal unfortunately. The Pro 12 should be getting double what it is at the moment. A pathetic £11.5m, but I can't see any one tv company paying for it as it's such a poor product compared to the rest of pro rugby in this hemisphere. That's why the league is a lame duck.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Plus Sky and BT are about at their limit for what is a minority sport. They aren't there to  subsidise, they want to make money.

BT are using sport to drive people to their broadband packages, its primary aim is not to make money. The more people they can bring to BT broadband and away from other packages the better. If the Pro12 is drawing bigger audiences than the AP there is value in having it, the Pro12s drawback is it does not have the same value to advertisers as the AP

Just a dig at chunky marty. Best of luck getting Sky to pay more.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

marty2086 wrote: which is also limited to one game a season between two sides during the regular season.

That's not correct. There were home and away fixtures between the same teams last season that sky televised.

I wouldn't have thought the money is there to make it a much better deal unfortunately. The Pro 12 should be getting double what it is at the moment. A pathetic £11.5m, but I can't see any one tv company paying for it as it's such a poor product compared to the rest of pro rugby in this hemisphere. That's why the league is a lame duck.

Sky can show the reverse fixture but they don't have exclusive rights, it's happening with Leinster and Ospreys this season

The money isn't there? Sky no longer have the Champions League rights which was worth hundreds of millions and they won't be getting the AP any time soon. They snapped up the Top 14 out do BT and increase the amount of rugby they can show, its not a stretch to think that BT will want to do the same to Sky again.

marty2086 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

marty2086 wrote: which is also limited to one game a season between two sides during the regular season.

That's not correct. There were home and away fixtures between the same teams last season that sky televised.

I wouldn't have thought the money is there to make it a much better deal unfortunately. The Pro 12 should be getting double what it is at the moment. A pathetic £11.5m, but I can't see any one tv company paying for it as it's such a poor product compared to the rest of pro rugby in this hemisphere. That's why the league is a lame duck.

Sky can show the reverse fixture but they don't have exclusive rights, it's happening with Leinster and Ospreys this season

The money isn't there? Sky no longer have the Champions League rights which was worth hundreds of millions and they won't be getting the AP any time soon. They snapped up the Top 14 out do BT and increase the amount of rugby they can show, its not a stretch to think that BT will want to do the same to Sky again.

No - the money is there, but the deal doesn't makes sense. Loads more money for Dragons v Zebre? I don't think so.

Your argument about "money being there so it can happen" is an interesting one though. I've been laughed at fr saying that in another context.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

marty2086 wrote: which is also limited to one game a season between two sides during the regular season.

That's not correct. There were home and away fixtures between the same teams last season that sky televised.

I wouldn't have thought the money is there to make it a much better deal unfortunately. The Pro 12 should be getting double what it is at the moment. A pathetic £11.5m, but I can't see any one tv company paying for it as it's such a poor product compared to the rest of pro rugby in this hemisphere. That's why the league is a lame duck.

Sky can show the reverse fixture but they don't have exclusive rights, it's happening with Leinster and Ospreys this season

The money isn't there? Sky no longer have the Champions League rights which was worth hundreds of millions and they won't be getting the AP any time soon. They snapped up the Top 14 out do BT and increase the amount of rugby they can show, its not a stretch to think that BT will want to do the same to Sky again.

No -  the money is there, but the deal doesn't makes sense. Loads more money for Dragons v Zebre? I don't think so.

Your argument about "money being there so it can happen" is an interesting one though. I've been laughed at fr saying that in another context.

'I wouldn't have thought the money is there to make it a much better deal unfortunately'

Your statements usually go along the lines of the moneys there so it can happen, mine was pointing out that while you had said you didn't think the money would be there so given that they have a spare few hundred million it shouldn't be a problem plus its Sky they have pretty deep pockets

While Dragons v Zebre would be an option, if Sky are showing two games on the weekend Dragons play Zebre they could show there are 3 other games that weekend if they wanted to show 3 games a weekend. Exclusive rights would allow them that option

Great. I hope it happens.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

It would also mean a massive loss in TV revenue.

It really wouldn't. Ireland's current TV rights contribution is pittance.

munkian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

It would also mean a massive loss in TV revenue.

It really wouldn't. Ireland's current TV rights contribution is pittance.

But BBC Wales and S4C's is significantly more. That is a lot of money to lose.

LordDowlais wrote:

munkian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:I hope they scrap all free access TV coverage and it all goes to Sky or BT  to be honest.

Would mean each Union generates an equal amount of TV income and the KO days/times may be slightly fairer.

This may help some clubs too as it would mean not every game is on tv, maybe some clubs will see an increase in attendance

It would also mean a massive loss in TV revenue.

It really wouldn't. Ireland's current TV rights contribution is pittance.

But BBC Wales and S4C's is significantly more. That is a lot of money to lose.

Which Sky could easily cover.

munkian wrote:Which Sky could easily cover.

Well if they will then fine, but like I told marty, you cannot be 100% sure that they will. They would have to find the difference from ALL the free to air channels, however much of a pittance it is when you add them all up it is a lot more than you would like to think, Sky get over 20 games a season now, that is about half, why would they pay more again for the other half, they would more than likely pay another 5 million a year.

That would make more sense, Sky pay £5 million a year now, for half, and then they would pay another £5 million for the other half, that is less than what we get now with all the free to air channels, so we are expecting Sky to pay more than what they value half the fixtures at now ?

LordDowlais wrote:

munkian wrote:Which Sky could easily cover.

Well if they will then fine, but like I told marty, you cannot be 100% sure that they will. They would have to find the difference from ALL the free to air channels, however much of a pittance it is when you add them all up it is a lot more than you would like to think, Sky get over 20 games a season now, that is about half, why would they pay more again for the other half, they would more than likely pay another 5 million a year.

That would make more sense, Sky pay £5 million a year now, for half, and then they would pay another £5 million for the other half, that is less than what we get now with all the free to air channels, so we are expecting Sky to pay more than what they value half the fixtures at now ?

What are you talking about half? Sky pay £5m for first pick from a round of games, they are entitled to show 30 league games plus the play off games. If they want a game exclusively they can't have shown the reverse fixture already. If they were to have exclusive rights they would have the right to show 135 games that significantly more than doubling their current package

Sky would surely just bid slightly more than the others currently bid, why bid a load more? Perhaps if the Pro 12 clubs had a quiet discussion saying they would ideally prefer some games be on free tv and Sky desperately wanted all the games they may be persuaded to pay a bit more.

Your are all talking in ifs and buts.

None of you can say 100% what is going to happen, if you could, you would be very rich people.

If what you say come's off then fine, I am with you, but you cannot be 100% so to base your argument on what might happen is fantasy. You are just surmising.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sky would surely just bid slightly more than the others currently bid, why bid a load more? Perhaps if the Pro 12 clubs had a quiet discussion saying they would ideally prefer some games be on free tv and Sky desperately wanted all the games they may be persuaded to pay a bit more.

BBC Wales and S4C pay a lot more to the regions then any others. The regions get a bigger share of that pie, unless Sky are going to pay a lot more then the regions will lose out.

If you're going with one provider it would just be an equal share across the board surely?

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you're going with one provider it would just be an equal share across the board surely?

Thus, the regions would lose out. Unless Sky pay a substantial lot more, which I cannot see happening.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sky would surely just bid slightly more than the others currently bid, why bid a load more? Perhaps if the Pro 12 clubs had a quiet discussion saying they would ideally prefer some games be on free tv and Sky desperately wanted all the games they may be persuaded to pay a bit more.

BBC Wales and S4C pay a lot more to the regions then any others. The regions get a bigger share of that pie, unless Sky are going to pay a lot more then the regions will lose out.

The tv revenue is equally distributed as the rights are bought from the league

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sky would surely just bid slightly more than the others currently bid, why bid a load more? Perhaps if the Pro 12 clubs had a quiet discussion saying they would ideally prefer some games be on free tv and Sky desperately wanted all the games they may be persuaded to pay a bit more.

BBC Wales and S4C pay a lot more to the regions then any others. The regions get a bigger share of that pie, unless Sky are going to pay a lot more then the regions will lose out.

The tv revenue is equally distributed as the rights are bought from the league

I don't think they are.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sky would surely just bid slightly more than the others currently bid, why bid a load more? Perhaps if the Pro 12 clubs had a quiet discussion saying they would ideally prefer some games be on free tv and Sky desperately wanted all the games they may be persuaded to pay a bit more.

BBC Wales and S4C pay a lot more to the regions then any others. The regions get a bigger share of that pie, unless Sky are going to pay a lot more then the regions will lose out.

The tv revenue is equally distributed as the rights are bought from the league

I don't think they are.

You mean surmise that they aren't?

I hear so much about the league being set up for the Irish it is a bit surprising to see that the Welsh get the larger slice.

marty, if all the tele money was distributed equally then the Welsh regions and the WRU would be subsidising the rest of the league significantly.

We have had this debate before, which you staunchly refuted to be folly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I hear so much about the league being set up for the Irish it is a bit surprising to see that the Welsh get the larger slice.

It's because the WRU brokered the deal with BBC Wales and S4C. For all Rogers failings, he at least did get the best deal from the tele companies out of all the unions. The only thing is, he decided to keep most of it for paying off the stadium debt.

LordDowlais wrote:marty, if all the tele money was distributed equally then the Welsh regions and the WRU would be subsidising the rest of the league significantly.

We have had this debate before, which you staunchly refuted to be folly.

Now your lying because I've never argued that case

How are the Welsh subsidising them? Considering BBC Wales and S4C is available across the UK and the games shown involve all 12 teams your just talking out of the wrong end now, the clubs that host televised games receive fees from broadcasters for the 'inconvenience' of their presence

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:marty, if all the tele money was distributed equally then the Welsh regions and the WRU would be subsidising the rest of the league significantly.

We have had this debate before, which you staunchly refuted to be folly.

Now your lying because I've never argued that case

How are the Welsh subsidising them? Considering BBC Wales and S4C is available across the UK and the games shown involve all 12 teams your just talking out of the wrong end now, the clubs that host televised games receive fees from broadcasters for the 'inconvenience' of their presence

No, BBC Wales and S4C pay money to show the Welsh regions for the Welsh public, just because the you can get the channels on your Sky box it does not mean that they are aimed towards you. I watch a lot of Ulster rugby on BBC NI. It is on channel 972 on my Sky box.

The deal was brokered by the WRU for Welsh rugby. That is why we have such a good deal with BBC Wales and S4C.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I hear so much about the league being set up for the Irish it is a bit surprising to see that the Welsh get the larger slice.

It's because the WRU brokered the deal with BBC Wales and S4C. For all Rogers failings, he at least did get the best deal from the tele companies out of all the unions. The only thing is, he decided to keep most of it for paying off the stadium debt.

We've struck a terrific deal with Celtic Rugby that ensures every fan in Wales has the very best view of the action

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/28550272

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I hear so much about the league being set up for the Irish it is a bit surprising to see that the Welsh get the larger slice.

It's because the WRU brokered the deal with BBC Wales and S4C. For all Rogers failings, he at least did get the best deal from the tele companies out of all the unions. The only thing is, he decided to keep most of it for paying off the stadium debt.

Bet they had a hard time brokering that seeing as Roger would have known that they had to bid for those rights.

OK marty read this linky:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/bbc-wales-s4c-strike-new-7529242

and this bit in particular:-

he WRU received the lion’s share, understood to around 70%, from Celtic Rugby –which was then washed through to the four Welsh regions. wrote:

I was not aware that it had changed, so in affect, Welsh rugby is committing the most to our league, and that is something neither you or munchkin can argue over anymore.

LordDowlais wrote: he at least did get the best deal from the tele companies out of all the unions.

The Welsh regions don't think so.

"With the significant proposed contribution of £3.2m from Welsh television to secondary TV rights for Pro12, why is the estimated contribution from Irish TV only £910,000 and from Scottish TV only £140,000?"

Regional Rugby Wales | 15/12/2013

Unless you mean that the Welsh one is the best one. Which is a fair point

LordDowlais wrote:OK marty read this linky:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/bbc-wales-s4c-strike-new-7529242

and this bit in particular:-



I was not aware that it had changed, so in affect, Welsh rugby is committing the most to our league, and that is something neither you or munchkin can argue over anymore.

Or we could read the whole thing

Under the previous deal with BBC Wales, the WRU received the lion’s share, understood to around 70%, from Celtic Rugby –which was then washed through to the four Welsh regions.

For the new Sky and BBC Wales deals there will now be more of an equitable split between the three unions, but it will still result in the four regions each receiving increased funding than previously.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: he at least did get the best deal from the tele companies out of all the unions.

The Welsh regions don't think so.

"With the significant proposed contribution of £3.2m from Welsh television to secondary TV rights for Pro12, why is the estimated contribution from Irish TV only £910,000 and from Scottish TV only £140,000?"

Regional Rugby Wales | 15/12/2013

Unless you mean that the Welsh one is the best one. Which is a fair point

Yes, that rubber stamps what I am saying. Out of all the unions involved in the Celtic league/Pro12, Roger Lewis, got the best deal from the TV companies out of all of them.

LordDowlais wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: he at least did get the best deal from the tele companies out of all the unions.

The Welsh regions don't think so.

"With the significant proposed contribution of £3.2m from Welsh television to secondary TV rights for Pro12, why is the estimated contribution from Irish TV only £910,000 and from Scottish TV only £140,000?"

Regional Rugby Wales | 15/12/2013

Unless you mean that the Welsh one is the best one. Which is a fair point

Yes, that rubber stamps what I am saying. Out of all the unions involved in the Celtic league/Pro12, Roger Lewis, got the best deal from the TV companies out of all of them.

Chief executive of Celtic Rugby (which negotiated the BBC Wales deal under its Pro12 Rugby arm) John Feehan said: “We are delighted to strengthen our relationship with BBC Wales and S4C.

Do you ever get fed up with being wrong?

I'd like to ask John Feehan why the 4 teams of Wales derive £3.2m of tv income into the league, yet the 4 teams of Ireland derive just £910,000.