Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rugby: a political football

Options
  • 21-05-2010 11:58am
    #1
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭


    This post has been deleted.


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Because he is trying to deflect peoples attention from the actual situation that he doesn't have a clue about solving the real problems that people face.

    He thinks that a free game of rugger on the TV will placate people.

    I'm with the IRFU on this as they are managing the game in Ireland and our teams are successful under their tenure whereas this government have proven that they would even have difficulty running their noses let alone anything more substantial.


  • Options
    #3
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The Romas threw bread to the Roman mobs, Cowen and the greens want to throw ' free' Rugby to the irish peasants !
    In the meantime these clown want to charge us for that most fundamental of resources - water.
    The Greens and FF are untterly immoral and corrupt.


  • Options
    #4
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,311 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of this particular case (i.e., whether Irish Rugby is better off or not longterm with Sky deals or fta deals. I don't know the answer).

    But in general there is plenty of precedents of governments getting involved 'in this sort of thing'. The idea of having 'reserved events' that can only be shown fta is an EU idea which many governments in the EU have acted on. So events like Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, the Grand National, the FA Cup final, Englands and the other home nations games in the football World Cup are all on the UK reserved list.
    And in Ireland stuff like the Derby, the All Ireland Finals, the soccer teams World Cup qualifiers are all on our list.
    And throughout Europe other countries have acted to put their big events on their list.
    And at a bigger level the EU has acted to ensure that no broadcaster has a monopoly on events either. Politics and broadcating deals are a perfectly normal mix.

    So our politicians are just doing what politicans in other countries are doing.

    The debate shouldn't be on the basis of 'look at those interfering fckers in Leinster House getting involved in something that doesn't involve them whilst the hospitals are closing'.
    The debate should be a rational one as to whether its good for rugby and good for the viewer that these events are possibly being put on our list. And for definite the people that run rugby should not be the only ones to make the decision, thought their input is hugely important.


  • Options
    #5
    danman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    Was there not some explaination the other day, saying that every few years, free to air sport in each country comes up for review.
    It's the same for each EU country.

    Perhaps that's the reason why it being debated.

    I have no opinion of it in any way.
    I'm not a rugby fan. Fairweather fan maybe, but I don't fare enough to have an opinion on it.

    Although, I do find the figure of €12m hard to believe.
    Considering that 6 nations is free to air anyway, are the IRFU saying that the Heiniken Cup coverage is worth 12 million?

    It doesn't really stack up for me.

    Can some one explain how this figure comes from?
    It's more to do with my ignorance on the subject that anything else.


  • Options
    #6
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    I can't understand why the IRFU don't do what the Welsh do.....put it on TG4, like the Welsh put it on S4C!

    And to hear them talking about "TV money", you'd swear that Sky were paying them!

    Reality check : they're not (at least, not out of their own pockets) because the people who used to get these matches for the price of their TV licence have to pay Sky!

    Not only that, but if they want to also see the Celtic League, they have to pay another subscription to Setanta!

    Eamonn Ryan - for once - is doing something in the public interest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    anymore wrote: »
    The Romas threw bread to the Roman mobs, Cowen and the greens want to throw ' free' Rugby to the irish peasants !
    In the meantime these clown want to charge us for that most fundamental of resources - water.
    The Greens and FF are untterly immoral and corrupt.

    i take it you believe that the rest of the EU is immoral and corrupt too?


  • Options
    #8
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    I'm guessing he's getting involved because if the decision were left to the likes of you it would be sold to SKY TV and a significant portion of the population would be denied the opportunity to watch a Sporting occasion.


  • Options
    #9
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I can't understand why the IRFU don't do what the Welsh do.....put it on TG4, like the Welsh put it on S4C!

    And to hear them talking about "TV money", you'd swear that Sky were paying them!

    Reality check : they're not (at least, not out of their own pockets) because the people who used to get these matches for the price of their TV licence have to pay Sky!

    Not only that, but if they want to also see the Celtic League, they have to pay another subscription to Setanta!

    Eamonn Ryan - for once - is doing something in the public interest.

    How may of the people who want ' free rugby' tropt along to see the free underage games at thier local clubs ?
    From my experience, very few. Even many parents of underage players cant bother their as*ses supporting thier kids at games !
    Ive been to loads and loads of underage rygby games and have never been to an International. I dont have Sky but can easily see Sky rigby games if i want to.


  • Options
    #10
    danman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Eamonn Ryan - for once - is doing something in the public interest.

    ....boards goes into meltdown....

    Liam agrees with Government policy....

    I need to sit down. ;)


  • Options
    #11
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    anymore wrote: »
    How may of the people who want ' free rugby' tropt along to see the free underage games at thier local clubs ?

    Is that really teh best argument you can come up with?

    I don't play Golf, but I enjoy watching it on BBC. I like football but I don't go and watch the local side.

    If anything it is you who is turning Rugby into a 'Capitalists' football with the need for enjoyment of sport coming secondary to making profit from it. Just leave it alone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    danman wrote: »
    ....boards goes into meltdown....

    Liam agrees with Government policy....

    I need to sit down. ;)

    Just proves that I'm not so blinkered as to not recognise a good idea.

    On the rare occasion that the Government come up with a good idea, I've no problem giving them credit where it's due.....it's just far too rare an occurrence.

    Mind you, given the coverage on S4C, I think it also proves that the Government don't think things through; I reckon my suggestion is a happy medium that's a better solution for all involved ;)


  • Options
    #13
    themont85
    Registered Users Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of this particular case (i.e., whether Irish Rugby is better off or not longterm with Sky deals or fta deals. I don't know the answer).

    But in general there is plenty of precedents of governments getting involved 'in this sort of thing'. The idea of having 'reserved events' that can only be shown fta is an EU idea which many governments in the EU have acted on. So events like Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, the Grand National, the FA Cup final, Englands and the other home nations games in the football World Cup are all on the UK reserved list.
    And in Ireland stuff like the Derby, the All Ireland Finals, the soccer teams World Cup qualifiers are all on our list.
    And throughout Europe other countries have acted to put their big events on their list.
    And at a bigger level the EU has acted to ensure that no broadcaster has a monopoly on events either. Politics and broadcating deals are a perfectly normal mix.

    So our politicians are just doing what politicans in other countries are doing.

    The debate shouldn't be on the basis of 'look at those interfering fckers in Leinster House getting involved in something that doesn't involve them whilst the hospitals are closing'.
    The debate should be a rational one as to whether its good for rugby and good for the viewer that these events are possibly being put on our list. And for definite the people that run rugby should not be the only ones to make the decision, thought their input is hugely important.

    Great post.

    I think they really need to be careful with these sorts of things though. We have a situation with the Premier League where the consumer is probably in a worse postion with splitting the rights due to the EU saying they had too. Now the consumer must pay two subscriptions. Its bad though Sky having such control over these rights in England and Ireland though.


  • Options
    #14
    Marshy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭Marshy


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well as Ryan says in a piece in today's Times, this idea is being put forward because the list of free-to-air sporting events is reviewed every 3 years.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0521/1224270808161.html

    I don't know where I stand on this yet. I mean the state of Irish rugby was strong before Sky had the exclusive rights. In recent years there's been more high-profile overseas players for the provinces, which isn't a bad thing, but I don't think a reduction would be disastrous either.

    Having said that, any move that would give George Hook more air time is questionable...

    As for Cowen stepping in to Support Ryan, surely thats to be expected.


  • Options
    #15
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of this particular case (i.e., whether Irish Rugby is better off or not longterm with Sky deals or fta deals. I don't know the answer).

    But in general there is plenty of precedents of governments getting involved 'in this sort of thing'. The idea of having 'reserved events' that can only be shown fta is an EU idea which many governments in the EU have acted on. So events like Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, the Grand National, the FA Cup final, Englands and the other home nations games in the football World Cup are all on the UK reserved list.
    And in Ireland stuff like the Derby, the All Ireland Finals, the soccer teams World Cup qualifiers are all on our list.
    And throughout Europe other countries have acted to put their big events on their list.
    And at a bigger level the EU has acted to ensure that no broadcaster has a monopoly on events either. Politics and broadcating deals are a perfectly normal mix.

    So our politicians are just doing what politicans in other countries are doing.

    The debate shouldn't be on the basis of 'look at those interfering fckers in Leinster House getting involved in something that doesn't involve them whilst the hospitals are closing'.
    The debate should be a rational one as to whether its good for rugby and good for the viewer that these events are possibly being put on our list. And for definite the people that run rugby should not be the only ones to make the decision, thought their input is hugely important.


    this would work where countries have several FTA companies, that can bid against each other.
    Realistically, in Ireland, we have only 1 company that can use its licience fee and advertising money to outbid the one other.
    RTE will knock TV3 out of the bidding extremely early and cheaply, meaning that they will not have to bid anywhere near as much as they would have had to against Sky (or if there was serious competition in our TV market)

    Having a small population base makes it impratical to expect that a serious bidding competition will emerge, for these rights


  • Options
    #16
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    If it were anyone but Ryan I wouldn't be too worried but I think this guy is a fanatic. Once he gets an idea, he becomes so blinkered that he can't objectively stand back and re-evaluate whether what he has said makes sense.

    As for the whole idea, I have no problem with the government forcing the International games onto FTA but he should stay out of club games. Maybe at a stretch, he could have any European final involving an Irish team FTA, but certainly not every possible game from qualifiers to final.

    If he really wanted to make a lot of people happy, then he should consider putting all English Premiership Soccer games on this list :D


  • Options
    #17
    baalthor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭baalthor


    MaceFace wrote: »
    If he really wanted to make a lot of people happy, then he should consider putting all English Premiership Soccer games on this list :D

    True ... Liverpool v ManU would attract more support than Leinster or Munster v some European team ...


  • Options
    #18
    Heroditas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    danman wrote: »
    I have no opinion of it in any way.
    I'm not a rugby fan. Fairweather fan maybe, but I don't fare enough to have an opinion on it.

    Although, I do find the figure of €12m hard to believe.
    Considering that 6 nations is free to air anyway, are the IRFU saying that the Heiniken Cup coverage is worth 12 million?

    It doesn't really stack up for me.

    Can some one explain how this figure comes from?
    It's more to do with my ignorance on the subject that anything else.



    The 6N is worth about €9.5m and the HEc worth about €2.5m according to the IRFU.
    The IRFU, Welsh RU, Socttish RU and English RU all band together for the broadcasting rights.
    BBC bought those rights after bidding for them and the deal was then negotiated between the unions to divide up the spoils.
    RTÉ get a stream from the BBC for the matches at a decent rate, hence why it's "free-to-air".

    My understanding is that if the government insist that the matches are made free-to-air, the other unions can ditch the IRFU and the IRFU would lose the collective bargaining power they benefit from by being part of the combined negotiations.
    RTÉ will then just pay a pittance for the games because, well, nobody else will particularly want to watch them!


  • Options
    #19
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    karma_ wrote: »
    Is that really teh best argument you can come up with?

    I don't play Golf, but I enjoy watching it on BBC. I like football but I don't go and watch the local side.

    If anything it is you who is turning Rugby into a 'Capitalists' football with the need for enjoyment of sport coming secondary to making profit from it. Just leave it alone.

    I am sure there are many more valid arguements, but I wanted to make the point that irish people always want a free lunch !
    And then we wonder why we are in the situation we are in ! :p
    Do we expect tesco to provide free groceries ?
    Why should we have to pay an RTE licence ? I cant receive an RTE Channel off air where i am living- so why i am legally obliged to pay for service that RTE and the Government wont deliver .Even if RTE transmit ' free rugby', I can see it on my own TV.


  • Options
    #20
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    anymore wrote: »
    I am sure there are many more valid arguements, but I wanted to make the point that irish people always want a free lunch !

    That's incorrect, for a start.

    Back when we had just the terrestrial channels, events like this were on TV. You had to pay your TV licence, but in return you got access to the sports.

    Now, people are paying their TV licence, but have to pay an extra subscription to both Sky and Setanta if they want to watch the rugby and soccer matches.

    And what amuses me is that most people who complain about their TV licence don't even realise there's an irony in there; they've no problem paying extra to support the companies that prevented them getting value-for-money in the first place, even if the only reason those companies can afford the rights is by charging the people who wanted to view said games....and could, before Sky and Setanta got involved.
    anymore wrote: »
    Do we expect tesco to provide free groceries ?

    No, but if your local store was providing your groceries in return for €166 a year and you putting up with a few ads, then why would you support Tesco if they came in and charged you another €450 a year ?
    anymore wrote: »
    Why should we have to pay an RTE licence ? I cant receive an RTE Channel off air where i am living- so why i am legally obliged to pay for service that RTE and the Government wont deliver .Even if RTE transmit ' free rugby', I can see it on my own TV.

    I presume that you mean you "can't" see it on your own TV ?

    I'd then wonder where you live, because most areas can. But I would get involved with your neighbours and lobby RTE to fix this, because you do have a point.

    Unfortunately, given that the only way to see the sporting events is via satellite, I would guess that a lot of your neighbours are already receiving via Sky, and therefore you will get less support for your lobbying.....but that's - in a way - yours and their fault because ye chose to get Sky instead of getting the problem fixed.


  • Options
    #21
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    A few years ago I was paying a decent amount of money to sky to watch the premiership, then the eu got worried that sky was too powerful so they brought in rules that sky couldn't buy all the rights so setanta stepped in, all of this according to eu was in the consumers best interests

    so then I had to pay for sky and setanta, then setanta goes nearly bust and espn got involved so now I have to pay for sky, setanta and espn. What's more is now it is so much more difficult to know if a game is on tv and which channel it's on

    so it was in consumer interest to have to pay 3 cable companies which is a hell of a lot more than I was paying a few years ago

    nice 1 eu


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    That's incorrect, for a start.

    Back when we had just the terrestrial channels, events like this were on TV. You had to pay your TV licence, but in return you got access to the sports.

    Now, people are paying their TV licence, but have to pay an extra subscription to both Sky and Setanta if they want to watch the rugby and soccer matches.

    And what amuses me is that most people who complain about their TV licence don't even realise there's an irony in there; they've no problem paying extra to support the companies that prevented them getting value-for-money in the first place, even if the only reason those companies can afford the rights is by charging the people who wanted to view said games....and could, before Sky and Setanta got involved.



    No, but if your local store was providing your groceries in return for €166 a year and you putting up with a few ads, then why would you support Tesco if they came in and charged you another €450 a year ?



    I presume that you mean you "can't" see it on your own TV ?

    I'd then wonder where you live, because most areas can. But I would get involved with your neighbours and lobby RTE to fix this, because you do have a point.

    Unfortunately, given that the only way to see the sporting events is via satellite, I would guess that a lot of your neighbours are already receiving via Sky, and therefore you will get less support for your lobbying.....but that's - in a way - yours and their fault because ye chose to get Sky instead of getting the problem fixed.

    As Maggie thacher said " Wring, wrong, wrong.
    Firstly I dont have SKY satellite or any subscription tv.- my budget doesnt run to it.;
    Back when we had just terrestial tv, there was very little sport on tv compared to today. SKY in a way revolutionised the way sport is organised and shown and is greatly responsible for popularisisng the following of sport on TV.
    I did a quick surevy of some teenage rugby players and one made the point that without the big TV money, top playerslike O Gara, Brian o Driscoll etc would be probably be playing in UK or France, especially France. IF we want to compete with the big boys, we have to maximise the money coming into the game.. Players follow the money for very obivous reasons.

    As for 'Free Lunch's" this is absolutely and undoubetedly true. We have had the begging bowl out to the EU ever since we joined to an embarassing degree.


  • Options
    #23
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    anymore wrote: »
    Back when we had just terrestial tv, there was very little sport on tv compared to today.

    There was a Premiership match on most Saturdays, and lots of rugby matches too. "Sports Stadium" was precisely that, and usually well worth a watch.

    Yes, of course one channel couldn't show more than one match at a time, so other channels mean that other matches get shown.

    But that should be done by paying extra for the extra matches.....not by swiping them from existing channels.


  • Options
    #24
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    There was a Premiership match on most Saturdays, and lots of rugby matches too. "Sports Stadium" was precisely that, and usually well worth a watch.

    Yes, of course one channel couldn't show more than one match at a time, so other channels mean that other matches get shown.

    But that should be done by paying extra for the extra matches.....not by swiping them from existing channels.

    In fact before SKY the only english soccer available were the highlights of two First division matches shown after the pub crowd got home from the pub. Match of the Day !
    It is SKY whih has revolutioniosed sports coverage.


  • Options
    #25
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    anymore wrote: »
    In fact before SKY the only english soccer available were the highlights of two First division matches shown after the pub crowd got home from the pub. Match of the Day !
    It is SKY whih has revolutioniosed sports coverage.

    I'd check my facts, if I were you.

    I normally wouldn't rely in Wikipedia as a reference, but considering I remember this personally, it'll do for now.
    From the 1970s through to 1997, RTÉ's flagship television sports programme was Sports Stadium, which provided live football and racing coverage on Saturday afternoons along with coverage of other sports and classified football results, in similar manner to the BBC's Grandstand or ITV's World of Sport. The programme was badly hit by the loss of live rights to Saturday afternoon Football League Division One matches after the beginning of the Premier League in 1992 and ended as part of RTÉ's revamp of Network 2 into N2 in 1997, being replaced for one year by Saturday Sports Live (which only concentrated on one single football or rugby game. Since 1998 RTÉ has not covered live sports on Saturday on a weekly basis on television, although major events such as the Six Nations Championship are still shown live.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT%C3%89_Sport

    Also :

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65467911

    I'll admit that this was pre-Premiership, and so the references are all to "Division 1", which younger boards readers might think refers to the lower divisions; at the time it was the "premier division".


  • Options
    #26
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I'd check my facts, if I were you.

    I normally wouldn't rely in Wikipedia as a reference, but considering I remember this personally, it'll do for now.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT%C3%89_Sport

    Also :

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65467911

    I'll admit that this was pre-Premiership, and so the references are all to "Division 1", which younger boards readers might think refers to the lower divisions; at the time it was the "premier division".


    Liam I can remember following Man Utd when they were relegated to the second division. For a long time Sat Night match of the day was, to my recollection, the only soccer matches to be seen.I am going back to 70's


  • Options
    #27
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,311 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    anymore wrote: »
    In fact before SKY the only english soccer available were the highlights of two First division matches shown after the pub crowd got home from the pub. Match of the Day !

    This is just plain wrong. From the 1983 season onwards there was live league matches on BBC and ITV. (I remember rushing home from my own U12s game to see the first live league game Spurs v Forest)
    Sky Sports outbid BBC/ITV for the live deal a full 10 years later.

    edit : wiki seems to confirm that this was indeed the first game, and that the rest is true as well. Also you must remember Liverpool v Arsenal in the Michael Thomas game live on a Friday night. Final day dramas aren't just a Sky thing !
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_on_television#Rise_of_live_League_coverage


  • Options
    #28
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    anymore wrote: »
    Liam I can remember following Man Utd when they were relegated to the second division. For a long time Sat Night match of the day was, to my recollection, the only soccer matches to be seen.I am going back to 70's

    sports stadium definately showed first division games (premiership) games. Ironically as a kid i hated rugby and used to hate 5 nations time as the soccer was stopped for 6 weeks while they showed the rugby

    I have since grown to love rugby though:D


  • Options
    #29
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    This is an interesting debate. The IRFU got badly found out when they produced dodgy figures to bolster their argument. If the game went FTA the 2.5m they currently get would go out to tender and they might get half that. But what is very telling is that less than one fifth of the tv audience who watched the HC final when it was last on FTA than did so last season. The IRFU should take a long and hard look at what happened to boxing when they decided to go down the short term PPV route.

    What is very interesting to me is the contrast with what happened when FAI went to sell to sky. All the same commentators who are defending the IRFU's right to go to the highest bidder took a massive dump on the FAI for doing the same. Why the double standard?


  • Options
    #30
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    MaceFace wrote: »
    If it were anyone but Ryan I wouldn't be too worried but I think this guy is a fanatic. Once he gets an idea, he becomes so blinkered that he can't objectively stand back and re-evaluate whether what he has said makes sense.

    As for the whole idea, I have no problem with the government forcing the International games onto FTA but he should stay out of club games. Maybe at a stretch, he could have any European final involving an Irish team FTA, but certainly not every possible game from qualifiers to final.

    If he really wanted to make a lot of people happy, then he should consider putting all English Premiership Soccer games on this list :D

    Club football and Gah games are on the list - I just watched the Champions League final free to air. Why should the egg chasers be treated differently, especially seeing as there is a genuine chance of Irish participation in the final.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Kiwi_knock
    Registered Users Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭Kiwi_knock


    Does anyone know if the rights to screen the Challenge Cup are included, because I'm sure most Connacht fans would not like having Leinster, Munster and Ulster games free but not their team.
    How would it work as well, would they show all three Irish teams games or just one of the games at the weekend.
    As I am fortunate to have Sky, I think the coverage of rugby on it is first class. If it becomes free to air on RTE I would still prefer to watch it on Sky.
    I think of instead of getting all the rights to the games they should instead look for partial rights, screen the games involving the Irish teams from the quarter finals onwards.
    I am not in favour of anything that unduly damages the Irish rugby system. I do not know if the warnings that Connacht will be disbanded are scaremongering tactics or based in fact. I am all for people getting to see games free of charge but not to the detriment of the sport.


Advertisement