Rugby: a political football

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

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 !
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

Liam Byrne

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

And it could well have been the case in the 70s, but you more-or-less claimed that Sky brought live matches to TV.

Where were you during the 80s, while matches were on terrestrial TV, making the Sky boffins go "hmmm......if we could charge for this, we'd make money" ?

therecklessone

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I just watched the Champions League final free to air.

Oh no you didn't.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And it could well have been the case in the 70s, but you more-or-less claimed that Sky brought live matches to TV.

Where were you during the 80s, while matches were on terrestrial TV, making the Sky boffins go "hmmm......if we could charge for this, we'd make money" ?

It was indeed the case.
SKY has been the conduit forbringing professional standards into many areas of sport and television - it has also led to a good degree of dumbing down as well unfortunately.
The bottom line is whether Minister Ryan has alternative sources of revenue lined up for the IRFU to make up the shortfall.
As Matt Cooper points out todays Sunday Times " Irish Rugby is at best ever health, enjoying an intersest and support unthinkable during the amateur era ... "

Ryan should stay out of sport and concentrate on arwas like broadband that are his responsibility.
Ryan is that most dangerous of individuals the enthusiastic clown who has been given power.

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

It was indeed the case.

Fine. But I can't understand why you haven't come straight out and admitted that your post about Sky bringing live matches to TV was 100% wrong.

anymore wrote: »

SKY has been the conduit forbringing professional standards into many areas of sport and television

Obviously if you pay way too much something is going to be "better".

Mind you, I don't think mispronoucing "Tomás O'Leary" and "Donnacha O'Callaghan" is particularly professional myself.

anymore wrote: »

The bottom line is whether Minister Ryan has alternative sources of revenue lined up for the IRFU to make up the shortfall.

No. It's not up to him to make up a shortfall from people being overcharged.

anymore wrote: »

As Matt Cooper points out todays Sunday Times " Irish Rugby is at best ever health, enjoying an intersest and support unthinkable during the amateur era ... "

I'm surprised at Cooper, tbh.......he's strawmanning of the highest order. "Unthinkable during the amateur era" has nothing to do with it.

The relevant question is whether it's a level that's possible to maintain while extending viewership and making the sport even more accessible.

anymore wrote: »

Ryan should stay out of sport and concentrate on arwas like broadband that are his responsibility.
Ryan is that most dangerous of individuals the enthusiastic clown who has been given power.

I'd suggest that it's the first thing that "clown" has done that might actaully benefit the ordinary Joe Soap.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fine. But I can't understand why you haven't come straight out and admitted that your post about Sky bringing live matches to TV was 100% wrong.



Obviously if you pay way too much something is going to be "better".

Mind you, I don't think mispronoucing "Tomás O'Leary" and "Donnacha O'Callaghan" is particularly professional myself.



No. It's not up to him to make up a shortfall from people being overcharged.



I'm surprised at Cooper, tbh.......he's strawmanning of the highest order. "Unthinkable during the amateur era" has nothing to do with it.

The relevant question is whether it's a level that's possible to maintain while extending viewership and making the sport even more accessible.



I'd suggest that it's the first thing that "clown" has done that might actaully benefit the ordinary Joe Soap.

Ok so you just dont like SKY ? Seems to be a reaction of many Irish people.
AS for paying too much being obivously better - way wrong here- we are paying way too much for Government and Local Authority services and get crap !
I am surprised at your comments regarding accents - how do you think Irish attempts at prouncing foreign names come accross ?
And Cooper is wrong as well ? :cool:
Not up to ryan to make up shortfall ? Well that at least would be consistent with the FF/Green attitude that has got in the economic sitaution we are in. Have you transferred over to FF/Green - I thought you were an opponent ?

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

Ok so you just dont like SKY ? Seems to be a reaction of many Irish people.

As I said, I don't like them taking events that were previously free-to-air and pricing other operators out of the market by passing on the cost to gullible viewers who don't say "hang on a second.......if I want more I'll pay for it, but don't hijack what I already had"......and - I repeat - what they already had was First Division (the then equivalent of the Premiership) for free.....I notice that you again refused to retract your earlier claim about this.

anymore wrote: »

AS for paying too much being obivously better - way wrong here- we are paying way too much for Government and Local Authority services and get crap !

Valid point. But it doesn't take from my point.

anymore wrote: »

I am surprised at your comments regarding accents - how do you think Irish attempts at prouncing foreign names come accross ?

I've worked in the media; I have seen phonetically-spelt scripts. It's simple to do if you want to make the effort to be professional.

anymore wrote: »

And Cooper is wrong as well ?

Did I say he was "wrong" ? I pointed out where he was strawmanning, refusing to compare like with like. If he decides to compare like with like, I'll judge whether or not he is wrong, but from that paragraph he hasn't a leg to stand on.

anymore wrote: »

Not up to ryan to make up shortfall ? Well that at least would be consistent with the FF/Green attitude that has got in the economic sitaution we are in. Have you transferred over to FF/Green - I thought you were an opponent ?

Oh FFS! :rolleyes: I give credit where credit's due. I'm not so blinkered as to automatically dismiss an idea if it's thought through (and I've already offered the happy medium as a solution if the IRFU are being honest and need the money).

If you want to lower the discussion to that level in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong earlier, then fire away.

If you want to discuss why the money is required, and whether there's a valid reason not to look into / take the S4C approach, then fire away.

But if you want to claim that agreeing that the smoking ban and this proposal are bad just because FF & Greens do far more harm than good, then count me out.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I said, I don't like them taking events that were previously free-to-air and pricing other operators out of the market by passing on the cost to gullible viewers who don't say "hang on a second.......if I want more I'll pay for it, but don't hijack what I already had"......and - I repeat - what they already had was First Division (the then equivalent of the Premiership) for free.....I notice that you again refused to retract your earlier claim about this.



Valid point. But it doesn't take from my point.



I've worked in the media; I have seen phonetically-spelt scripts. It's simple to do if you want to make the effort to be professional.



Did I say he was "wrong" ? I pointed out where he was strawmanning, refusing to compare like with like. If he decides to compare like with like, I'll judge whether or not he is wrong, but from that paragraph he hasn't a leg to stand on.



Oh FFS! :rolleyes: I give credit where credit's due. I'm not so blinkered as to automatically dismiss an idea if it's thought through (and I've already offered the happy medium as a solution if the IRFU are being honest and need the money).

If you want to lower the discussion to that level in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong earlier, then fire away.

If you want to discuss why the money is required, and whether there's a valid reason not to look into / take the S4C approach, then fire away.

But if you want to claim that agreeing that the smoking ban and this proposal are bad just because FF & Greens do far more harm than good, then count me out.

I am a very entusiastic supporter of the smoking ban and I am at a complete loss as to how you assumed I am not - just as i am at a loss as to how you assumed I am a SKY subscriber ? You mentioned you worked in the media; perhaps this presumption without having any basis whatsoever for these presumptions is connected with your media experiences ?
Why are you suggesting the IRFU are not being honest ? And I have to say there is more than a touch of arrogance in calling viewers who are willing to pay for thier TV viewing ' gullible'. !
I would aslo take issue with your claim that the First Division and Premeirship are equivalent; they are in terms of quality players most certainly not - look at how few english players now play in top tier clubs - Many of the worlds top players now play in the primiership !

therecklessone

therecklessone wrote: »

Oh no you didn't.

Actually, I'll correct myself there.

The Champions League is not covered by Irish legislation, but the TV rights packages include the stipulation that 1st pick of games on each matchday is made available to a FTA channel, and they are also entitled to broadcast the final.

My apologies.

ejmaztec

anymore wrote: »

SKY has been the conduit forbringing professional standards into many areas of sport and television

That's the kind of tongue-in-cheek rubbish that the Murdochs' PR guys would come out with.

I'm not particularly interested in any sport, but even I know that TV viewing sports-fans didn't have to pay a cent until Murdoch found another way of making money for his empire.

anymore

ejmaztec wrote: »

That's the kind of tongue-in-cheek rubbish that the Murdochs' PR guys would come out with.

I'm not particularly interested in any sport, but even I know that TV viewing sports-fans didn't have to pay a cent until Murdoch found another way of making money for his empire.

" SKY has been the conduit forbringing professional standards into many areas of sport and television - it has also led to a good degree of dumbing down as well unfortunately "
I dont want to be too pompous, but quoting the full sentence gives a slightly different impression.
Murdoch was a visionary evenif we dont always appreciate all the results.
He shook up those pompous RoyaL Arse kissing boring ITV and BBC !
I am surprised that it is an old fart like me who isnt looking at the ' good old days' through sepia tinted spectacles !

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

I am a very entusiastic supporter of the smoking ban and I am at a complete loss as to how you assumed I am not - just as i am at a loss as to how you assumed I am a SKY subscriber ?

What ???? I used those as an example of government actions that I support, while still "not being an FF supporter". Please keep up with your own posts and the points and clarifications that they cause.

anymore wrote: »

You mentioned you worked in the media; perhaps this presumption without having any basis whatsoever for these presumptions is connected with your media experiences ?

Again, what ???? I don't even think that sentence makes sense ?

I knew that comment would throw back accusations of bias and experiences; the answer is no, I've never worked for TV. And my point was - solely - that it's easy to type something phonetically. Nothing more. So less red herrings, please.

anymore wrote: »

Why are you suggesting the IRFU are not being honest ? And I have to say there is more than a touch of arrogance in calling viewers who are willing to pay for thier TV viewing ' gullible'. !

I would debate the figures being bandied around, just as I would be sceptical of the globally-trotted out figure that a Munster match is worth 10 million to Limerick. If actual figures were revealed, along with the alternative figures, then we could make up our own mind.

As for the "gullible" comment, if someone arrived at my door and said "do you want extra - you'll have to pay more, though", I'd consider it.

But if someone arrived at my door and said "would you like to pay extra - to us - for something you already have and are happy with", I'd laugh in their faces. As would most people if you break down Sky's business model in those terms.

Plus the fact that you don't even know what matches they'll be showing, so you're buying a pig in a poke (although this relates primarily to soccer and so is somewhat off-topic).

anymore wrote: »

I would aslo take issue with your claim that the First Division and Premeirship are equivalent; they are in terms of quality players most certainly not - look at how few english players now play in top tier clubs - Many of the worlds top players now play in the primiership !

Nice try. I clarified this because people might think that it was the current first division that was televised.

It's becoming laughable the lengths that you are going to to avoid admitting that you were 100% wrong.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ???? I used those as an example of government actions that I support, while still "not being an FF supporter". Please keep up with your own posts and the points and clarifications that they cause.



Again, what ???? I don't even think that sentence makes sense ?

I knew that comment would throw back accusations of bias and experiences; the answer is no, I've never worked for TV. And my point was - solely - that it's easy to type something phonetically. Nothing more. So less red herrings, please.



I would debate the figures being bandied around, just as I would be sceptical of the globally-trotted out figure that a Munster match is worth 10 million to Limerick. If actual figures were revealed, along with the alternative figures, then we could make up our own mind.

As for the "gullible" comment, if someone arrived at my door and said "do you want extra - you'll have to pay more, though", I'd consider it.

But if someone arrived at my door and said "would you like to pay extra - to us - for something you already have and are happy with", I'd laugh in their faces. As would most people if you break down Sky's business model in those terms.

Plus the fact that you don't even know what matches they'll be showing, so you're buying a pig in a poke (although this relates primarily to soccer and so is somewhat off-topic).


Nice try. I clarified this because people might think that it was the current first division that was televised.

It's becoming laughable the lengths that you are going to to avoid admitting that you were 100% wrong.[/QUOT

This is your reference to the media:

I've worked in the media; I have seen phonetically-spelt scripts. It's simple to do if you want to make the effort to be professional

.
This is my reference to your media comment :

You mentioned you worked in the media; perhaps this presumption without having any basis whatsoever for these presumptions is connected with your media experiences ?

So where is my reference to you working in tv ?

"! Plus the fact that you don't even know what matches they'll be showing, so you're buying a pig in a poke (although this relates primarily to soccer and so is somewhat off-topic "

Liam this is not one of your better days :eek:

The bottom line is that irish Rugby is now totally professional and wonderfully effective. It is about time that the amchair sportmen started to contribute a little; the men who and women who go to irish national & provincial matches put thier money where mouths are - ' bout time all the couch potatoes did a little of the same !:D

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

Liam this is not one of your better days :eek:

The bottom line is that irish Rugby is now totally professional and wonderfully effective. It is about time that the amchair sportmen started to contribute a little; the men who and women who go to irish national & provincial matches put thier money where mouths are - ' bout time all the couch potatoes did a little of the same !:D

I honestly don't know whether you're just deliberately avoiding every single point, or whether I am indeed having a less-than-better day.

I've read back over everything - including your original incorrect comment about Sky introducing live matches to TV - and all I can see is nit-picking on irrelevant points in every single reply of yours, avoiding the discussion completely.

I'm not going to re-quote everything here, but it's obvious to anyone who reads the full thread so I'll summarise:

1) You still haven't retracted your original incorrect statement about there being no top-level live soccer on TV

2) You haven't acknowledged that it would be simple for Sky to write down names phonetically and therefore be more professional

3) I believe that that Sky should show EXTRA matches for their fees, which would be fair enough, but leave the originals in-situ without hijacking them

4) If the matches were on TG4 on the same basis as they are shown on S4C, then it might be a solution that suits everyone.

Those are the key points that I've made, and I think they are (a) perfectly clear and (b) perfectly valid. Let's ditch all the bull about FF bias and media experiences and whatever red herrings you've thrown in, and talk about those 4 points.

Otherwise, I'll bow out because we're just generating pages and making this hard to read......anyone who has objectively read the thread will already know that those are my 4 points and they are not going to change no matter how many times I have to repeat or clarify them.

flutered

ok folks who will come up with the dosh to mantain rugby at its present level,
who will provide the the cash for coaching, fitness, medical etc advice, the issue is if it comes into effect, one will never see an irish team contest the finals of the hinekan cup the challange cup , the triple crown etc, the cash will dry up, then who will watch all the forgein teams play one another, (excuse the spelling) answers on the back of a stamp please.

anymore

flutered wrote: »

ok folks who will come up with the dosh to mantain rugby at its present level,
who will provide the the cash for coaching, fitness, medical etc advice, the issue is if it comes into effect, one will never see an irish team contest the finals of the hinekan cup the challange cup , the triple crown etc, the cash will dry up, then who will watch all the forgein teams play one another, (excuse the spelling) answers on the back of a stamp please.

Liam and his colleagues will no doubt have the solution to that !

ejmaztec

flutered wrote: »

ok folks who will come up with the dosh to mantain rugby at its present level,
who will provide the the cash for coaching, fitness, medical etc advice, the issue is if it comes into effect, one will never see an irish team contest the finals of the hinekan cup the challange cup , the triple crown etc, the cash will dry up, then who will watch all the forgein teams play one another, (excuse the spelling) answers on the back of a stamp please.

Sponsors and non pay-per-view tv networks.

hallelujajordan

flutered wrote: »

ok folks who will come up with the dosh to mantain rugby at its present level,
who will provide the the cash for coaching, fitness, medical etc advice, the issue is if it comes into effect, one will never see an irish team contest the finals of the hinekan cup the challange cup , the triple crown etc, the cash will dry up, then who will watch all the forgein teams play one another, (excuse the spelling) answers on the back of a stamp please.

Interesting article by Eamonn Sweeney in yesterday's SINDO outlining the other sources of revenue the IRFU receive much of which originates with the taxpayer . .

€191M from the govt for the Aviva stadium
€17.5M from the Irish Sports Council (i presume p.a.)
€34M to clubs in capital funding over the last 12 years

€40M from Aviva
€40M from Puma

36 Corporate boxes at €800k a pop

The money argument is a nonsense . . scaremongering designed to frighten the public into agreement with the IRFU . . this is greed, plain and simple. .

Eamonn Ryan's central point is perfectly illustrated . .

"Unlike the IRFU, Eamon Ryan has made his case calmly, politely and sensibly. He has pointed out, for example, that the 2006 Heineken Cup quarter-final between Leinster and Toulouse was watched by 255,000 people on television. When the same two teams played at the same stage of the competition the following year, the audience was down to 47,000. The difference? The first match was shown on RTE, the second on Sky Sports. The audience of children under 14 watching the game dropped from 27,000 to 2,000. "

The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that sports events of national significance are available on TV to a national audience. No one can argue that the 6N or the HC are not "of national significance" and Eamonn Ryan is simply doing his job by ensuring that they stay available.

The numbers that concern me most here are the kids viewing figures. I would have thought that it would be in the IRFU's interest to increase the audience amongst children and use the big events to push rugby out to a wider audience, thereby vastly improving their playing pool in the years to come ? ?

It's not often I find myself 100% in agreement with Liam

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Interesting article by Eamonn Sweeney in yesterday's SINDO outlining the other sources of revenue the IRFU receive much of which originates with the taxpayer . .

€191M from the govt for the Aviva stadium
€17.5M from the Irish Sports Council (i presume p.a.)
€34M to clubs in capital funding over the last 12 years

€40M from Aviva
€40M from Puma

36 Corporate boxes at €800k a pop

The money argument is a nonsense . . scaremongering designed to frighten the public into agreement with the IRFU . . this is greed, plain and simple. .

Eamonn Ryan's central point is perfectly illustrated . .

"Unlike the IRFU, Eamon Ryan has made his case calmly, politely and sensibly. He has pointed out, for example, that the 2006 Heineken Cup quarter-final between Leinster and Toulouse was watched by 255,000 people on television. When the same two teams played at the same stage of the competition the following year, the audience was down to 47,000. The difference? The first match was shown on RTE, the second on Sky Sports. The audience of children under 14 watching the game dropped from 27,000 to 2,000. "

The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that sports events of national significance are available on TV to a national audience. No one can argue that the 6N or the HC are not "of national significance" and Eamonn Ryan is simply doing his job by ensuring that they stay available.

The numbers that concern me most here are the kids viewing figures. I would have thought that it would be in the IRFU's interest to increase the audience amongst children and use the big events to push rugby out to a wider audience, thereby vastly improving their playing pool in the years to come ? ?

It's not often I find myself 100% in agreement with Liam

What is mssing from this post ?
Not even a single item of experditure !
Read this article from France on this idiotic suggestion - comment from people who actually know what they are talking about !

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/peter-bills/peter-bills-french-stress-folly-of-ryans-free-agenda-2191898.html

" Go ahead with your plan to allow Irish rugby matches be shown on free-to-air television and you will destroy the game in this country. It will mean the end of professional rugby in Ireland.
That was the warning over the weekend to Irish Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan.
And, astonishingly, it came not from Ireland, but from France -- the country likely to reap the greatest benefits from what would almost certainly be a player drain from the IRFU. ............ "

The figures about the numbers of kids who dont watch if the games are shown on SKY are complete nonsense. If a kid isnt playing rugby at a club or at least is a member of a club, then it ireally is quite irrelevant !
That is the problem from what i can see - the majority who want ' free rugby' contribute nothing whatsoever to Irish rugby - pay for your own lunches for a change !

OhNoYouDidn't

anymore wrote: »

What is mssing from this post ?
Not even a single item of experditure !
Read this article from France on this idiotic suggestion - comment from people who actually know what they are talking about !

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/peter-bills/peter-bills-french-stress-folly-of-ryans-free-agenda-2191898.html

" Go ahead with your plan to allow Irish rugby matches be shown on free-to-air television and you will destroy the game in this country. It will mean the end of professional rugby in Ireland.
That was the warning over the weekend to Irish Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan.
And, astonishingly, it came not from Ireland, but from France -- the country likely to reap the greatest benefits from what would almost certainly be a player drain from the IRFU. ............ "

The figures about the numbers of kids who dont watch if the games are shown on SKY are complete nonsense. If a kid isnt playing rugby at a club or at least is a member of a club, then it ireally is quite irrelevant !
That is the problem from what i can see - the majority who want ' free rugby' contribute nothing whatsoever to Irish rugby - pay for your own lunches for a change !

That is exactly the short termist thinking that will kill rugby in this country.

I repeat, look at boxing. There was a time when the heavyweight championship of the world was as big a sports event in Ireland as an All Ireland Final. Now, I must admit I don't even know who the heavyweight champion of the world is. Whats the difference? All bouts on PPV on Sky and watched by less than 5% of the audiences of the 90's. Golden goose slayed,

Back to Ryans point - if the HC goes FTA, viewing figures will increase and RTE/TV3 will be able to offer almost as much if not more to the IRFU as the ad revenue from 5 times the viewing figures will increase.

And then there is the competitive advantage argument. Football in Ireland from LoI to Irish clubs in Europe to the home international games has to go FTA, as goes the sharp end of the Gah season. Why are rugby allowed to sell euro games to Sky and the FAI not? How is that a level playing field?

The fact is the most played game in football and watched games in the Gah are strategically moving away from the PPV model to allow as many as possible to see their games should say something. The IRFU are coming across very poorly PR wise - they are looking like pompus snobs in their media releases while Ryan looks calm and measured.

anymore

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That is exactly the short termist thinking that will kill rugby in this country.

I repeat, look at boxing. There was a time when the heavyweight championship of the world was as big a sports event in Ireland as an All Ireland Final. Now, I must admit I don't even know who the heavyweight champion of the world is. Whats the difference? All bouts on PPV on Sky and watched by less than 5% of the audiences of the 90's. Golden goose slayed,

Back to Ryans point - if the HC goes FTA, viewing figures will increase and RTE/TV3 will be able to offer almost as much if not more to the IRFU as the ad revenue from 5 times the viewing figures will increase.

And then there is the competitive advantage argument. Football in Ireland from LoI to Irish clubs in Europe to the home international games has to go FTA, as goes the sharp end of the Gah season. Why are rugby allowed to sell euro games to Sky and the FAI not? How is that a level playing field?

The fact is the most played game in football and watched games in the Gah are strategically moving away from the PPV model to allow as many as possible to see their games should say something. The IRFU are coming across very poorly PR wise - they are looking like pompus snobs in their media releases while Ryan looks calm and measured.

It is totally absurd to compare the farcical pantonmine that is boxing to rugby or anyother sport in this:pcountry !
I repeat people who are not willing to make some kind of contribution to sport really are irrelevant.
Sport is about participation - As I said before when young teens who actulaly play the game can see the folly of this Green rubbish, then the matter is crystal clear.
If you want to see sky rugby games for free, then take a trip down to your local rugby club - they wont even ask you to buy a drink !