The Future for the PRO 12 - Part 2 - USA Expansion

First topic message reminder :

We've had the discussion on how does the PRO12 move forward for much of last season.

Towards the end of the season, PR012 CEO, Martin Anayi gave several media interviews on his own, and with PRO 12 chairman, Gerald Davies, on where the PRO12 needs to go to cope with changes in rugby within Six Nations and globally.

Anayi and Davies identified and acknowledged a number of the issues raised by PRO clubs CEOs and fans including increase in TV monies, match-day attendances, marketing, standard of refereeing, season structure and test window matches,  scheduling of season matches/kick-off times including Sunday games, European competitions, player welfare/concussion, growing "event" weekends, etc.

Anayi and Davies met with PRO12 CEOs over the last season to discuss issues and get feedback on a number of proposals that would mark out the future for the PRO 12 and its member unions.  

From various media interviews and reports - some unsubstantiated - a number of key decisions are being considered by PRO 12 and its 12 member clubs along with their representative organisations and unions.  In summary, these would appear to include:

• Changes to season scheduling to make it more accessible, consistent, and appealing to fans across the four unions territories starting from next season 2016/17.
  
• Further investment in a referee development programme to deal with issues/perceptions of bias and neutrality for league fixtures
  
• Stronger and more localised marketing and promotion of league games by the PRO12 and by the individual clubs to attract fans to games and make it more appealing to broadcasters.
  
• More promotion and stronger branding/marketing of games by TV partners
  
• Changing the structure of the league from home & away 22 games to a conference/pool structure that can accommodate more teams in the future from other unions/territories e.g. North America and South Africa, with East Coast of America being the first target to develop a franchise with operational and coaching expertise being provided by the four unions.
  
• Development of Big Event Weekends to drive crowd numbers, create a more appealing product for TV companies/sponsors, and generate more revenues for the PRO12
  
• Reduce number of games played during season and re-strucure so that no "league" games are played during the test windows in November and Feb/March
  
• Consequently, this would allow a greater proportion of league games to have test players involved and increase quality of product.
  
• During test windows, the PRO CEOs want rugby to continue, and a revised development competition is being proposed for these periods for development of academy and young players within squads not involved in test rugby.  This may involve changes to the British & Irish Cup and the Anglo-Wlesh Cup.  One report indicates that Premier Rugby may be interested in discussing the creation of a British & Irish development cup to replace the current AW Cup that would attract increased sponsorship and TV money than currently.
  

It's clear that changes need to occur for the PRO12.   The current structure and set-up is neither sufficient nor sustainable.   The most recent comments on this from the CEO of the IRFU in publishing their annual report indicate this clearly, and what changes need to occur.  He also commented on the plans to develop a franchise in the US.

The potential for the development of a B&I league has been regularly discussed on 606v2, but for the purposes of this topic, it's not being included as the Premiership has commitments for the next 6-7 years on its TV deals that would not countenance such a move.  

Feel free to comment/dispute/argue on what is being proposed - any errors are entirely mine.

munkian wrote:I don't agree with Phil on most things but to argue against having contractual standards for all games in the league is retarded.

Who is arguing against it?

Munchkin wrote:

Griff wrote:I get the feeling that a lot of people see Phil's posts and just argue the opposite, regardless of their true feelings on the matter.  There's a lot of posters on here that I have seen over the years pushing for better standards in the pro 12, better league, better 'marketability', everyone 'pulling their weight', etc. and then Phil comes along and says 'wouldn't it be great if ALL games had TMOs to improve standards and suddenly it's the worst idea in the world!  I get the feeling if the question was raised by Munchkin, Notch, Bedford, et al. we'd have a lot more agreement and head nodding.  It's a funny old world.  

Just an observation men.  As you were...

I can only speak for myself, and it isn't true for me. We all want better standards, but the issue with no TMO is hardly the fault of PRO12. That is an issue that can only be addressed by broadcasters.

But surely the Pro12 specify standards when they draw up contracts ? And if a broadcaster isn't fulfilling that then it should be brought up ?

Munchkin wrote:
I can only speak for myself, and it isn't true for me. We all want better standards, but the issue with no TMO is hardly the fault of PRO12. That is an issue that can only be addressed by broadcasters.

This is completely wrong.

The PrO'12 controls the product. It should have these standards as a minimum. If its broadcast partners cannot deliver them, the PrO'12 should publicly state so.

You're assuming the PrO'12 has asked for the standards and you're assuming the broadcasters cannot afford it. AND you're criticising, personally, other posters who are assuming that the PrO'12 hasn't asked for the minimum standards.

Can you not see your hypocrisy here?

Whichever assumption is right is almost irrelevant, all we are asking for is for the information to be made public on WHY there are no TMO at certain games.

OK then, we have NO TMO's and No mic'ed up refs.

Look we are either one, or the other, not some for some games, and none for others.

And before people start, I am not finger pointing any nation, I am blaming the Pro12 for being so amateur.

Munchkin wrote:You have even been very helpful in starting a match thread and offering to set one up.

I would do things like that for anyone. I will also vent my concerns on the welfare of our league as well. Come on, this is the 21st century, the technology is there, we should use it for every game. Unless you want to hark back to the last century. Rugby has come a long way, but because of the lack of professionalism in our league, we are falling behind. I want our league to be a par with other top leagues in Europe, sadly it isn't, and that is not down to the teams competing, but because of the people running the show.

munkian wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Griff wrote:I get the feeling that a lot of people see Phil's posts and just argue the opposite, regardless of their true feelings on the matter.  There's a lot of posters on here that I have seen over the years pushing for better standards in the pro 12, better league, better 'marketability', everyone 'pulling their weight', etc. and then Phil comes along and says 'wouldn't it be great if ALL games had TMOs to improve standards and suddenly it's the worst idea in the world!  I get the feeling if the question was raised by Munchkin, Notch, Bedford, et al. we'd have a lot more agreement and head nodding.  It's a funny old world.  

Just an observation men.  As you were...

I can only speak for myself, and it isn't true for me. We all want better standards, but the issue with no TMO is hardly the fault of PRO12. That is an issue that can only be addressed by broadcasters.

But surely the Pro12 specify standards when they draw up contracts ? And if a broadcaster isn't fulfilling that then it should be brought up ?

Amen.

How can it not be the Pro12's fault ?

munkian wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Griff wrote:I get the feeling that a lot of people see Phil's posts and just argue the opposite, regardless of their true feelings on the matter.  There's a lot of posters on here that I have seen over the years pushing for better standards in the pro 12, better league, better 'marketability', everyone 'pulling their weight', etc. and then Phil comes along and says 'wouldn't it be great if ALL games had TMOs to improve standards and suddenly it's the worst idea in the world!  I get the feeling if the question was raised by Munchkin, Notch, Bedford, et al. we'd have a lot more agreement and head nodding.  It's a funny old world.  

Just an observation men.  As you were...

I can only speak for myself, and it isn't true for me. We all want better standards, but the issue with no TMO is hardly the fault of PRO12. That is an issue that can only be addressed by broadcasters.

But surely the Pro12 specify standards when they draw up contracts ? And if a broadcaster isn't fulfilling that then it should be brought up ?

The Pro12 has representatives for the different Unions/Regions who negotiate on the their behalf. If BBCW refuse to broadcast a live event, such as the Cardiff v Glasgow game, and refuse to provide TMO facilities, what alternative do the PRO12 reps have? I would suggest none.

The practical solution is to ensure that all games are covered live, and the most practical way of ensuring that is to be covered by the one broadcaster.

munkian wrote:How can it not be the Pro12's fault ?

How can it be?

Munchkin wrote:

The Pro12 has representatives for the different Unions/Regions who negotiate on the their behalf. If BBCW refuse to broadcast a live event, such as the Cardiff v Glasgow game, and refuse to provide TMO facilities, what alternative do the PRO12 reps have? I would suggest none.

The practical solution is to ensure that all games are covered live, and the most practical way of ensuring that is to be covered by the one broadcaster.

I don't think that's right any longer, sorry. The last set of TV deals were negotiated by the PrO'12, not by the respective Unions.

And the answer to your question has been written many times in this thread: if the PrO'12 demand this function but the broadcasters cannot meet it, this needs to be made public.

Munchkin wrote:

munkian wrote:How can it not be the Pro12's fault ?

How can it be?

For the reasons presented to you many times in this thread.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

The Pro12 has representatives for the different Unions/Regions who negotiate on the their behalf. If BBCW refuse to broadcast a live event, such as the Cardiff v Glasgow game, and refuse to provide TMO facilities, what alternative do the PRO12 reps have? I would suggest none.

The practical solution is to ensure that all games are covered live, and the most practical way of ensuring that is to be covered by the one broadcaster.

I don't think that's right any longer, sorry. The last set of TV deals were negotiated by the PrO'12, not by the respective Unions.

And the answer to your question has been written many times in this thread: if the PrO'12 demand this function but the broadcasters cannot meet it, this needs to be made public.

Read my reply again.....

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

munkian wrote:How can it not be the Pro12's fault ?

How can it be?

For the reasons presented to you many times in this thread.

Reasons I've refuted. Do keep up.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
No you're the one who's confused

As you clearly don't now what you are asking for and the cost, especially since the bulk of the games are shown by a public broadcaster that's is seeing its budget eroded you can't ask them to fund highly skilled staff for games they aren't showing especially if they aren't showing the game

You've assumed the issue is cost. If so, I'd like that in the public domain.

A PrO'12 statement: We would like a TMO function at each of our games but, unfortunately, our broadcast partners cannot afford the infrastructure to supply us with this.

That would do me. If it is so, we can judge the league on that basis.

Now, that's my point in a nutshell. There's no confusion there. If, as you hint, the issue is that TG4 and Alba can't afford it, let's hear about it.

Who said they can't afford it?

Again you are making conclusions that aren't there

Why as a business should anyone pay for something they receive no benefit from?

The broadcasters I was speaking of were the BBC in general

Just because you refuted them doesn't mean they aren't correct...

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

munkian wrote:How can it not be the Pro12's fault ?

How can it be?

For the reasons presented to you many times in this thread.

Reasons I've refuted. Do keep up.

You haven't refuted.

To refute requires proof. You've offered opinion, not proof.

marty2086 wrote:

Who said they can't afford it?

Again you are making conclusions that aren't there

Why as a business should anyone pay for something they receive no benefit from?

The broadcasters I was speaking of were the BBC in general

You are the one that mentioned cost.

The benefit to the broadcaster is as I explained earlier in the thread.

Griff wrote:I get the feeling that a lot of people see Phil's posts and just argue the opposite, regardless of their true feelings on the matter.  There's a lot of posters on here that I have seen over the years pushing for better standards in the pro 12, better league, better 'marketability', everyone 'pulling their weight', etc. and then Phil comes along and says 'wouldn't it be great if ALL games had TMOs to improve standards' and suddenly it's the worst idea in the world!  I get the feeling if the question was raised by Munchkin, Notch, Bedford, et al. we'd have a lot more agreement and head nodding.  It's a funny old world.  

Just an observation men.  As you were...

You keep saying this, Griff. As often as you see the usual suspects (me included to be sure to be sure) do what they usually do - and that is to pounce on Phil when he comes in with his knowing frowns and stuffed files on finance - you tend to turn up and add your 10 cents.  
He turns up, we turn up and then you, Griff, you turn up.  Yes, it's a bloody Ground Hog day circus. We're all predictable.  

Yet we're also all adult enough here, however, to get tone - repetitive tone.  You turn up and wave your finger at some of us and say: "Come on guys, it's always the same tone.  Phil can do no right by you guys.  It's too pointed - I pick up the drone of the tone.  You argue with him on specifics but I get the overall message - I get the drone of the tone.  It wouldn't matter what he said, you'd say he was all wrong."

Precisely - our drone remains the same because Phil's remains constant too.   Never deviates.  Everything that could be wrong is wrong - fact.  No saving graces - everything that the Pro12 stands for both in philosophy, governance, finance, future strategy, personel, reffing, TMOing, play times, coaching, etc etc etc....is wrong.  We get it - we get the drone.  We pick it up.  We're alive to it - just as you are.

I dont understand why the Pro12 would publicize that it will now use neutral TMOs yet not have TMOs for every match, and the ones affected by this are always the same old teams at the bottom of the league, its a pile of shoite.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Who said they can't afford it?

Again you are making conclusions that aren't there

Why as a business should anyone pay for something they receive no benefit from?

The broadcasters I was speaking of were the BBC in general

You are the one that mentioned cost.

The benefit to the broadcaster is as I explained earlier in the thread.

So you want BBC execs to ay for TMOs for the Pro12 the have to sit in front of a parliamentary select committee and tell them it was a good idea?

There is no benefit in forcing the broadcasters into that position especially you seem to think those with the biggest pockets are exempt

Seems to be another stick to beat the Irish and now the Scottish with too on your Welsh is best crusade

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

munkian wrote:How can it not be the Pro12's fault ?

How can it be?

For the reasons presented to you many times in this thread.

Reasons I've refuted. Do keep up.

You haven't refuted.

To refute requires proof. You've offered opinion, not proof.

For goodness sake ....

The origin of this debate is rooted in the assertion that the PRO12 failed to provide a TMO for the game in Italy. The fact (the proof) is that the game was not broadcast live and so no TMO could be provided. That's proof, Phil.

We are dealing in present day realities, and the present day reality is that there is no national broadcaster for the Italian Regions, and BBCW couldn't fit the game in to schedule. The same scheduling issue must be true of the Cardiff v Glasgow game.

munkian wrote:I dont understand why the Pro12 would publicize that it will now use neutral TMOs yet not have TMOs for every match, and the ones affected by this are always the same old teams at the bottom of the league, its a pile of shoite.

Two separate issues.

marty2086 wrote:

So you want BBC execs to ay for TMOs for the Pro12 the have to sit in front of a parliamentary select committee and tell them it was a good idea?

There is no benefit in forcing the broadcasters into that position especially you seem to think those with the biggest pockets are exempt

Seems to be another stick to beat the Irish and now the Scottish with too on your Welsh is best crusade

Oh.

Here we go again with the comprehension issue, so I'll repeat.

"So you want BBC execs to ay for TMOs for the Pro12 the have to sit in front of a parliamentary select committee and tell them it was a good idea?" = No, I want broadcasters to provide the facilities for TMO at all domestic games as part of the broadcast contract. If they cannot afford to do this, so be it, but I want that information in the public domain. I do believe that the BBC will gain further value from their investment into the league IF the league has high professional standards. This is fairly basic business.

I do not think that any broadcaster is exempt.

I do not know if TG4 and Alba cannot afford it, or if BBC Wales cannot afford it. If none can afford it, so be it but the information should be in the public domain.

I cannot clarify this any further.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So you want BBC execs to ay for TMOs for the Pro12 the have to sit in front of a parliamentary select committee and tell them it was a good idea?

There is no benefit in forcing the broadcasters into that position especially you seem to think those with the biggest pockets are exempt

Seems to be another stick to beat the Irish and now the Scottish with too on your Welsh is best crusade

Oh.

Here we go again with the comprehension issue, so I'll repeat.

"So you want BBC execs to ay for TMOs for the Pro12 the have to sit in front of a parliamentary select committee and tell them it was a good idea?" = No, I want broadcasters to provide the facilities for TMO at all domestic games as part of the broadcast contract. If they cannot afford to do this, so be it, but I want that information in the public domain. I do believe that the BBC will gain further value from their investment into the league IF the league has high professional standards. This is fairly basic business.

I do not think that any broadcaster is exempt.

I do not know if TG4 and Alba cannot afford it, or if BBC Wales cannot afford it. If none can afford it, so be it but the information should be in the public domain.

I cannot clarify this any further.

You can talk.

Munchkin wrote:
The origin of this debate is rooted in the assertion that the PRO12 failed to provide a TMO for the game in Italy. The fact (the proof) is that the game was not broadcast live and so no TMO could be provided. That's proof, Phil.

We are dealing in present day realities, and the present day reality is that there is no national broadcaster for the Italian Regions, and BBCW couldn't fit the game in to schedule. The same scheduling issue must be true of the Cardiff v Glasgow game.

That may have been the origin of the debate but the debate has clearly moved on to games outside of Italy. Italy has no broadcast partner, as was discussed earlier, so clearly the debate had moved on to countries which have broadcast partners.

Again, there were cameras at the Cardiff v Glasgow game. So I have no idea why you are raising that game as something special.

Munchkin wrote:
You can talk.

That post would have some credence if you knew the meaning of the word refute and if you hadn't tried to wriggle off behind the lack of a broadcaster partner for games in Italy when the context of the discussion had clearly moved on from that.

PhilBB wrote:

I do not know if TG4 and Alba cannot afford it, or if BBC Wales cannot afford it. If none can afford it, so be it but the information should be in the public domain.

I cannot clarify this any further.

So you start your end. Ask the BBC Wales: "can you afford to give a professional set-up to games you are not going to televise? Or is that yet another question that should be directed to the Pr'O12?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So you want BBC execs to ay for TMOs for the Pro12 the have to sit in front of a parliamentary select committee and tell them it was a good idea?

There is no benefit in forcing the broadcasters into that position especially you seem to think those with the biggest pockets are exempt

Seems to be another stick to beat the Irish and now the Scottish with too on your Welsh is best crusade

Oh.

Here we go again with the comprehension issue, so I'll repeat.

"So you want BBC execs to ay for TMOs for the Pro12 the have to sit in front of a parliamentary select committee and tell them it was a good idea?" = No, I want broadcasters to provide the facilities for TMO at all domestic games as part of the broadcast contract. If they cannot afford to do this, so be it, but I want that information in the public domain. I do believe that the BBC will gain further value from their investment into the league IF the league has high professional standards. This is fairly basic business.

I do not think that any broadcaster is exempt.

I do not know if TG4 and Alba cannot afford it, or if BBC Wales cannot afford it. If none can afford it, so be it but the information should be in the public domain.

I cannot clarify this any further.

Broadcasters do not pay for TMOs, that's the league. Broadcasters provide production trucks, cameras and staff that allow them to do their job. None of which comes cheap, so you want them to send a full staff to games they are not broadcasting, it makes no sense

Munchkin wrote:

munkian wrote:I dont understand why the Pro12 would publicize that it will now use neutral TMOs yet not have TMOs for every match, and the ones affected by this are always the same old teams at the bottom of the league, its a pile of shoite.

Two separate issues.

Not exactly, both are required for the resemblance of a professionally run league.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:I get the feeling that a lot of people see Phil's posts and just argue the opposite, regardless of their true feelings on the matter.  There's a lot of posters on here that I have seen over the years pushing for better standards in the pro 12, better league, better 'marketability', everyone 'pulling their weight', etc. and then Phil comes along and says 'wouldn't it be great if ALL games had TMOs to improve standards' and suddenly it's the worst idea in the world!  I get the feeling if the question was raised by Munchkin, Notch, Bedford, et al. we'd have a lot more agreement and head nodding.  It's a funny old world.  

Just an observation men.  As you were...

You keep saying this, Griff.  As often as you see the usual suspects (me included to be sure to be sure) do what they usually do - and that is to pounce on Phil when he comes in with his knowing frowns and stuffed files on finance - you tend to turn up and add your 10 cents.    
He turns up, we turn up and then you, Griff, you turn up.  Yes, it's a bloody Ground Hog day circus.  We're all predictable.  

Yet we're also all adult enough here, however, to get tone - repetitive tone.  You turn up and wave your finger at some of us and say: "Come on guys, it's always the same tone.  Phil can do no right by you guys.  It's too pointed - I pick up the drone of the tone.  You argue with him on specifics but I get the overall message - I get the drone of the tone.  It wouldn't matter what he said, you'd say he was all wrong."

Precisely - our drone remains the same because Phil's remains constant too.   Never deviates.  Everything that could be wrong is wrong - fact.  No saving graces - everything that the Pro12 stands for both in philosophy, governance, finance, future strategy, personel, reffing, TMOing, play times, coaching, etc etc etc....is wrong.  We get it - we get the drone.  We pick it up.  We're alive to it - just as you are.

Do I keep saying it? I barely post here any more. Posted maybe 4 times in the last 2 weeks and even less before that.

It was just an observation to say that I'm pretty confident that a different poster offering his/her musings on the subject would have received a different collective response. It's as if it's a sin to agree with anything Phil says!

marty2086 wrote:
Broadcasters do not pay for TMOs, that's the league. Broadcasters provide production trucks, cameras and staff that allow them to do their job. None of which comes cheap, so you want them to send a full staff to games they are not broadcasting, it makes no sense

I am not asking broadcasters to pay for TMOs. I am noting that facilities for TMOs should be available at every game.

The sense of doing so has already been explained multiple times in this thread.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Broadcasters do not pay for TMOs, that's the league. Broadcasters provide production trucks, cameras and staff that allow them to do their job. None of which comes cheap, so you want them to send a full staff to games they are not broadcasting, it makes no sense

I am not asking broadcasters to pay for TMOs. I am noting that facilities for TMOs should be available at every game.

The sense of doing so has already been explained multiple times in this thread.

No there is no sense attached to the explanation as you claim regional broadcasters should be responsible for no apparent reason than they should be

marty2086 wrote:

No there is no sense attached to the explanation as you claim regional broadcasters should be responsible for no apparent reason than they should be

Well, as I've written about standards and about the league being of greater value to the broadcasters (for their investment) if the standards are higher, I can only assume that you've not read my posts if that's your honest interpretation of them.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
The origin of this debate is rooted in the assertion that the PRO12 failed to provide a TMO for the game in Italy. The fact (the proof) is that the game was not broadcast live and so no TMO could be provided. That's proof, Phil.

We are dealing in present day realities, and the present day reality is that there is no national broadcaster for the Italian Regions, and BBCW couldn't fit the game in to schedule. The same scheduling issue must be true of the Cardiff v Glasgow game.

That may have been the origin of the debate but the debate has clearly moved on to games outside of Italy. Italy has no broadcast partner, as was discussed earlier, so clearly the debate had moved on to countries which have broadcast partners.

Again, there were cameras at the Cardiff v Glasgow game. So I have no idea why you are raising that game as something special.

It's moved on, but still rooted in the fact that there was no live broadcast. The fact that there was no live broadcast means that there could be no TMO. That is a present day reality. It's possible that those broadcasters who wish to record highlights provide TMO facilities, but in order for that to happen they must first agree to such. That is also a reality. For any broadcasting company to provide TMO facilities, they would in effect be broadcasting live, even if not to TV. That is a legal issue.

It's doable, but would need the consent of the broadcasters, first and foremost. The regions PRO12 reps are not in a position to strong arm BBCW. Not unless another broadcasting competitor bids against BBCW.

Griff wrote:


Do I keep saying it?  I barely post here any more.  Posted maybe 4 times in the last 2 weeks and even less before that.  

It was just an observation to say that I'm pretty confident that a different poster offering his/her musings on the subject would have received a different collective response.  It's as if it's a sin to agree with anything Phil says!

You keep saying it in the sense that when you do show up, the infrequent times that you admittedly do, that line of yours about Phil isn't far off.    
Phil has his admitted agenda.  Not an improvement of Pro12 - an end to it.  Expressed many times.  The context is always there.  
You'll find though (if you were around a bit more0 that anyone that comes in with the same attitude as Phil - there have been a few - get challenged the same way.  Phil is not unique and the attention he is given is not unique.  Very much entitled to his opinion - others entitled to theirs as a challenge to those expressed views.

marty2086 wrote:Seems to be another stick to beat the Irish and now the Scottish with too on your Welsh is best crusade

I knew this would happen.

See, it is not Phil bringing nationality into it, it is you again marty. Why have you even mentioned this ?

It is due to the lack of professionalism in our league that we are not getting the same level of officiating across the board. Only in the Pro12 this happens. Yet there are people on here who cannot see the wood for the trees.

How can you blame the broadcasters ? If they can get away with not spending money, whilst getting the same product, they will. It is up to the people selling the product to get the best deal they can, and if that is demanding mic's and TMO's for every game, then that is the price. If the broadcasters cannot bring that to the table, then they lose out.

If we are in a position, where not all games can have this level of officiating because of costs, then NO games should get that level.

Are we really in a place where our league is at the same standard of officiating as we were in the 20th century ? Are we really that far behind our competitors ? If so, then we are well and truly screwed.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems to be another stick to beat the Irish and now the Scottish with too on your Welsh is best crusade

I knew this would happen.

See, it is not Phil bringing nationality into it, it is you again marty. Why have you even mentioned this ?

It is due to the lack of professionalism in our league that we are not getting the same level of officiating across the board. Only in the Pro12 this happens. Yet there are people on here who cannot see the wood for the trees.

How can you blame the broadcasters ? If they can get away with not spending money, whilst getting the same product, they will. It is up to the people selling the product to get the best deal they can, and if that is demanding mic's and TMO's for every game, then that is the price. If the broadcasters cannot bring that to the table, then they lose out.

If we are in a position, where not all games can have this level of officiating because of costs, then NO games should get that level.

Are we really in a place where our league is at the same standard of officiating as we were in the 20th century ? Are we really that far behind our competitors ? If so, then we are well and truly screwed.

He brings nationality into it every time he puts PrO'12 rather than Pro12.

Munchkin wrote:

It's moved on, but still rooted in the fact that there was no live broadcast. The fact that there was no live broadcast means that there could be no TMO. That is a present day reality. It's possible that those broadcasters who wish to record highlights provide TMO facilities, but in order for that to happen they must first agree to such. That is also a reality. For any broadcasting company to provide TMO facilities, they would in effect be broadcasting live, even if not to TV. That is a legal issue.

It's doable, but would need the consent of the broadcasters, first and foremost. The regions PRO12 reps are not in a position to strong arm BBCW. Not unless another broadcasting competitor bids against BBCW.

How on earth is it a legal issue? The cameras at Cardiff v Glasgow were broadcasting live to the screen in the ground.

You keep ignoring the basic point and I've no idea why. So here it is again:

If the PrO'12 asked for this facility but the broadcasters refused, this information should be in the public domain. If the PrO'12 did NOT ask for this facility, this should also be in the public domain.

It seems this is building into the theme of the season anyway - "You see??  I told you so!  That game was lost because it wasn't televised and that means that the winning try by the other side shouldn't have been given!"

Oh I can see the headlines now!

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems to be another stick to beat the Irish and now the Scottish with too on your Welsh is best crusade

I knew this would happen.

See, it is not Phil bringing nationality into it, it is you again marty. Why have you even mentioned this ?

It is due to the lack of professionalism in our league that we are not getting the same level of officiating across the board. Only in the Pro12 this happens. Yet there are people on here who cannot see the wood for the trees.

How can you blame the broadcasters ? If they can get away with not spending money, whilst getting the same product, they will. It is up to the people selling the product to get the best deal they can, and if that is demanding mic's and TMO's for every game, then that is the price. If the broadcasters cannot bring that to the table, then they lose out.

If we are in a position, where not all games can have this level of officiating because of costs, then NO games should get that level.

Are we really in a place where our league is at the same standard of officiating as we were in the 20th century ? Are we really that far behind our competitors ? If so, then we are well and truly screwed.

Actually he cited a game being broadcast on BBC Wales then said maybe its all to do with the Irish and Scottish not being able to afford it which makes no sense.

Its not down to a lack of professionalism its down to a lack of available broadcasters and/or there not being one single broadcaster

carpet baboon wrote:
He brings nationality into it every time he puts PrO'12 rather than Pro12.

I thought that was just highlighting its Dublin base where the actions seem to be catered for those in Dublin rather than those outside of Dublin.

Hence why some see it as 'For the Irish, By the Irish'.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:


Do I keep saying it?  I barely post here any more.  Posted maybe 4 times in the last 2 weeks and even less before that.  

It was just an observation to say that I'm pretty confident that a different poster offering his/her musings on the subject would have received a different collective response.  It's as if it's a sin to agree with anything Phil says!

You keep saying it in the sense that when you do show up, the infrequent times that you admittedly do, that line of yours about Phil isn't far off.    
Phil has his admitted agenda.  Not an improvement of Pro12 - an end to it.  Expressed many times.  The context is always there.  
You'll find though (if you were around a bit more0 that anyone that comes in with the same attitude as Phil - there have been a few - get challenged the same way.  Phil is not unique and the attention he is given is not unique.  Very much entitled to his opinion - others entitled to theirs as a challenge to those expressed views.

This is the bit I'm on about though. I reckon those views would not be ones of challenge but ones of agreement, had the calls for blanket use of TMOs across the league come from posters such as your good self, Fly. Which makes the arguments back and forth bizarre. Arguing against someone for the sake of arguing. Or to put it another way, if Phil had come on saying that TMO use should vary by region, or whether a game was televised or not, then I think a lot of the same posters would argue for blanket approaches and standards across the league.

How many times have I posted a line about Phil? Serious question! I honestly didn't know it was my 'thing'.

At the expense of others

marty2086 wrote:
Actually he cited a game being broadcast on BBC Wales then said maybe its all to do with the Irish and Scottish not being able to afford it which makes no sense.

Its not down to a lack of professionalism its down to a lack of available broadcasters and/or there not being one single broadcaster

It makes clear sense, Martyn. Here is the sense: if it was a requirement of the league but Alba and TG4 couldn't meet that requirement, BBC Wales wouldn't meet it either even if they could afford it. See now?

You don't know what the reason is for a lack of TMO at each game. NONE of us do. You're assuming. Meanwhile, the rest of us are asking for the reasons why to be in the public domain.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:
He brings nationality into it every time he puts PrO'12 rather than Pro12.

I thought that was just highlighting its Dublin base where the actions seem to be catered for those in Dublin rather than those outside of Dublin.

Hence why some see it as 'For the Irish, By the Irish'.

Any new info on the region's joining the english league? Your man at Cardiff was telling you it was all but a done deal this time last year wasn't he?

carpet baboon wrote:

Any new info on the region's joining the english league? Your man at Cardiff was telling you it was all but a done deal this time last year wasn't he?

Nope. No he wasn't.

The latest I heard was that the BT Sport financed B&I league was dismissed by Browne and Ritchie. The ring fencing issue in England isn't yet sorted, hence Ritchie's issue, but that will soon be done via salary cap. Browne's reasonings are anyone's guess, unless he's still holding out for RWC votes.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Actually he cited a game being broadcast on BBC Wales then said maybe its all to do with the Irish and Scottish not being able to afford it which makes no sense.

Its not down to a lack of professionalism its down to a lack of available broadcasters and/or there not being one single broadcaster

It makes clear sense, Martyn. Here is the sense: if it was a requirement of the league but Alba and TG4 couldn't meet that requirement, BBC Wales wouldn't meet it either even if they could afford it. See now?

You don't know what the reason is for a lack of TMO at each game. NONE of us do.  You're assuming. Meanwhile, the rest of us are asking for the reasons why to be in the public domain.

Funny I thought you knew everything

I do know its not down to the league being unprofessional as Im not aware of any other league having a production fleet and team at their disposal to facilitate the TMOs

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

It's moved on, but still rooted in the fact that there was no live broadcast. The fact that there was no live broadcast means that there could be no TMO. That is a present day reality. It's possible that those broadcasters who wish to record highlights provide TMO facilities, but in order for that to happen they must first agree to such. That is also a reality. For any broadcasting company to provide TMO facilities, they would in effect be broadcasting live, even if not to TV. That is a legal issue.

It's doable, but would need the consent of the broadcasters, first and foremost. The regions PRO12 reps are not in a position to strong arm BBCW. Not unless another broadcasting competitor bids against BBCW.

How on earth is it a legal issue? The cameras at Cardiff v Glasgow were broadcasting live to the screen in the ground.

You keep ignoring the basic point and I've no idea why. So here it is again:

If the PrO'12 asked for this facility but the broadcasters refused, this information should be in the public domain. If the PrO'12 did NOT ask for this facility, this should also be in the public domain.

Because the broadcasters are obviously not under any legal contractual obligation to do so. We have already covered this.

Then BBCW broadcast a live game at Cardiff.

The information should be in the public domain What planet do you live on? Just another side step by you. I did say we are dealing in present day realities. We are dealing in facts here, and not simply your opinion of what you would like to see.

marty2086 wrote:
I do know its not down to the league being unprofessional as Im not aware of any other league having a production fleet and team at their disposal to facilitate the TMOs

So, to confirm, you're telling me that the AP and T14 don't have TMOs for each game.

I've emailed the Pro12 regarding this - i.e is it a contractual obligation for broadcasters to provide TMOs for EVERY game ?

I've not said that its up to the pro12 to provide TMOs - I've said it would be ridiculous if TMOs weren't part of the broadcasters/Unions contract with Pro12.

marty2086 wrote:Its not down to a lack of professionalism its down to a lack of available broadcasters and/or there not being one single broadcaster

Wrong.

It is down to the people in charge of our league to ensure that we have the same level of officiating across the board to ensure meritocracy.

Why should we be in a position where games are affected by the level of officiating ? We are in a world of rightly or wrongly awarded tries. Yellow cards, play acting, pen or no pen, try or no try, citing's, foul play, pushing the boundaries.

Why should one team benefit from having the rub of the green because a ref cannot refer to a TMO, yet another team can ? Leagues are defined by it. It's called professionalism, technology has become a big part of it as we move further into the 21st century. If we cannot keep up, we sink, we fall apart, we finish.

Is this a future you want for the Pro12 ? You are burying your head in the sand. You are quite happy to keep meandering along, whilst our competitors are getting better and better.

The league should be working with the unions, as it is in their best interests to work together, between the Pro12, WRU, IRFU,SRU,FIR I am sure we could find a solution to this, but no, you would all rather argue the point and put up with mediocrity rather than strive for change, and improvements.