The European club rugby debacle continues part IV: the quest for peace

thomond2006

Swiwi. wrote: »

Whatever it's called, don't let Jar Jar Binks anywhere near the rugby forum please.

Star Wars fan, you are not?

icdg

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And neither Sky nor BT will want to be seen as the final insurmountable obstacle, so if it comes down to it I have absolutely no doubt that they will come to an agreement between each other

That's the key battle left out of all of those on page 2 - BT v Sky. The other nations simply cannot concede on the principle that PRL were allowed to sell the UK and Irish rights to all European games they play in - home and away, or so we are told - to BT Sport. If they back down on that one, the next thing will be that the next time the Six Nations comes up for renewal the RFU have carte blanch to sell the rights to all games England play in to Sky or BT.

Ideally, both agreements would be ripped up and the rights put out to tender again. Failing that, BT could accept that their agreement to cover PRL teams games only covers home games and allow Sky to cover the remainder. Some solution will have to be found though, because once the other Home Nations have ceded the right to sell their broadcasting rights - one of their biggest assets - to PRL alone, they will never get them back.

Grandpa Hassan

That would seem a sensible compromise alright, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something along those lines. I don't see either broadcaster just walking away. Would just suck for the Irish fan who would have to pay extra given that getting BT broadband is not an option

WorldRugby99

icdg wrote: »

That's the key battle left out of all of those on page 2 - BT v Sky. The other nations simply cannot concede on the principle that PRL were allowed to sell the UK and Irish rights to all European games they play in - home and away, or so we are told - to BT Sport. If they back down on that one, the next thing will be that the next time the Six Nations comes up for renewal the RFU have carte blanch to sell the rights to all games England play in to Sky or BT.

Ideally, both agreements would be ripped up and the rights put out to tender again. Failing that, BT could accept that their agreement to cover PRL teams games only covers home games and allow Sky to cover the remainder. Some solution will have to be found though, because once the other Home Nations have ceded the right to sell their broadcasting rights - one of their biggest assets - to PRL alone, they will never get them back.

A lot of posters seem to want to just blame the english clubs and BT.It can not also be forgotten,that ERC agreed a new deal with sky,and suddenly announced it much earlier than anticipated,when it didnt actually have the agreement of the french and english teams,who at that time had announced their withdrawal legallly and as was their right.ERC yes could sell the rights to who they wanted,but their was never an agreement with the clubs,so they werent selling rights to english and french teams with their agreement.
At the end of the day some sort of solution will have to be found and some sort of compromise.It may well be as others have suggested english clubs home games are on BT and the other games on sky.Whether sky would be happy with that i dont know-i suspect BT would accept that compromise just to get some more games.

Winters

The RFU did not exercise their right to exit the ERC participation agreement so are contractually bound to enter English clubs in ERC competitions next year. Same with the WRU. The BT deal is an English problem and should be sorted out between PRL and RFU. As other posters have said, there is a high probability that the RFU have the grounds to deem it null and void but don't have the balls.

vienne86

I think the Sky v BTcarve up is the key battle ground here. We are always told that as consumers, we benefit from competition among service providers, but for the life of me, I can't see how the competition between these two is benefitting consumers...well not this one anyway. It means that if we want to get all the rugby on TV we have to have two pay sports stations instead of one, which cost us big time.

I wish these sports channels would just organise themselves on the basis of each sport - e.g. give the cricket to Sky, the rugby to BT, the golf to Sky......and then if you want to follow two sports in detail, you might have to sign with two providers, but if you are just interested in one sport, you just have to fork out for one. This sort of thing was suggested over on the golf thread....good idea I think.

Grandpa Hassan

Winters wrote: »

The RFU did not exercise their right to exit the ERC participation agreement so are contractually bound to enter English clubs in ERC competitions next year. Same with the WRU. The BT deal is an English problem and should be sorted out between PRL and RFU. As other posters have said, there is a high probability that the RFU have the grounds to deem it null and void but don't have the balls.

Except there won't be an ERC competition. Which doesn't negate your point, but it does muddy the water somewhat when it comes to any contractual obligations and potential legal challenges (though the risk of these has receded, it seems)

DeDoc

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

A lot of posters seem to want to just blame the english clubs and BT.It can not also be forgotten,that ERC agreed a new deal with sky,and suddenly announced it much earlier than anticipated,when it didnt actually have the agreement of the french and english teams,who at that time had announced their withdrawal legally and as was their right.ERC yes could sell the rights to who they wanted,but their was never an agreement with the clubs,so they werent selling rights to english and french teams with their agreement.
At the end of the day some sort of solution will have to be found and some sort of compromise.It may well be as others have suggested english clubs home games are on BT and the other games on sky.Whether sky would be happy with that i dont know-i suspect BT would accept that compromise just to get some more games.

1) We don't know this, and what information we do have suggests the opposite - ERC claim there was unanimous agreement at a board meeting to mandate the sub-committee (check who was on that for a giggle!) to negotiate another deal
2) They don't need the agreement of the clubs - the unions are the stakeholders, and the clubs have a voice only insofar as their own unions delegate to them
3) They hadn't technically announced their withdrawal, they had exercised their notice option, which was required IF they wanted to not renew their participation at the end of the agreement (which is still running). Subtle, but IMO important difference. But yes, absolutely their right to do so.
4) We haven't seen either contract so we don't really know for sure, but ERC certainly have a mandate to negotiate rights on behalf of ERC participants. If that vote in (1) was indeed unanimous, then they have the explicit right to deal with Sky (or anyone else) on behalf of the ERC members. Even if it wasn't unanimous, they'd still have that right (just less 'moral' authority - i.e. it is just a majority wish, not universally agreed). Even if the vote didn't take place at all, I think they'd still have an implied right to enter negotiations for a putative ERC tournament. I assume in any case that SKY were diligent enough to examine the contingencies around who was actually participating.
5) PRL have rights to negotiate on behalf of PRL only. And they have those only at the whim of the RFU. Unless we stretch the meaning of European competition to include one ONLY involving PRL teams, they have no right to negotiate any deal
6) I'd be pretty sure (insofar as a non lawyer can be!) that ERC would have a strong case against the PRL boyos for their (implicit) use of ERC information in 'bad faith' when negotiating with BT. Chasing that would be a somewhat nuclear option, but may happen if it all explodes to the max. If it had just got to the stage of negotiation then it might be easily defended, but if they've actually signed away someone elses rights, that is another matter entirely.

keps

BBC not telling us very much.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/26149055


I met a couple of people working full time for the ERc late last week( one quite senior and not Irish).
They were extremely confident that the ERC - with a slight change in structure
( eg a new subsidiary/sister company) would continue to run the Heineken cup.

But maybe that is the party line.

WorldRugby99

DeDoc wrote: »

1) We don't know this, and what information we do have suggests the opposite - ERC claim there was unanimous agreement at a board meeting to mandate the sub-committee (check who was on that for a giggle!) to negotiate another deal
2) They don't need the agreement of the clubs - the unions are the stakeholders, and the clubs have a voice only insofar as their own unions delegate to them
3) They hadn't technically announced their withdrawal, they had exercised their notice option, which was required IF they wanted to not renew their participation at the end of the agreement (which is still running). Subtle, but IMO important difference. But yes, absolutely their right to do so.
4) We haven't seen either contract so we don't really know for sure, but ERC certainly have a mandate to negotiate rights on behalf of ERC participants. If that vote in (1) was indeed unanimous, then they have the explicit right to deal with Sky (or anyone else) on behalf of the ERC members. Even if it wasn't unanimous, they'd still have that right (just less 'moral' authority - i.e. it is just a majority wish, not universally agreed). Even if the vote didn't take place at all, I think they'd still have an implied right to enter negotiations for a putative ERC tournament. I assume in any case that SKY were diligent enough to examine the contingencies around who was actually participating.
5) PRL have rights to negotiate on behalf of PRL only. And they have those only at the whim of the RFU. Unless we stretch the meaning of European competition to include one ONLY involving PRL teams, they have no right to negotiate any deal
6) I'd be pretty sure (insofar as a non lawyer can be!) that ERC would have a strong case against the PRL boyos for their (implicit) use of ERC information in 'bad faith' when negotiating with BT. Chasing that would be a somewhat nuclear option, but may happen if it all explodes to the max. If it had just got to the stage of negotiation then it might be easily defended, but if they've actually signed away someone elses rights, that is another matter entirely.

The english and french clubs were fully justified and it was their right to give notice of their exit.therefore the whole future of the competition was up in the air.There was no tv deal for ERC to sell as the competition for the following seasons was not agreed.ERC simply went ahead and sold rights. ERC has to take some of the blame for making the situation worse.It didnt have to sign this new tv deal,it could and should have negotiated and worked things out rather than making it all worse.Did PRL tell ERC that they were going with BT,did ERC tell PRL that they would only sign with sky and that being in ERC meant you would have to go with sky? we simply dont know what went on behind the scenes.
I know many irish want to lay all the blame on the evil english-but all have to take blame whether that be the ERC,The PRL,the celtic unions for refusing to negotiate any changes early on etc etc
But whats past is past.We all now want a resolution.And it looks pretty likely ERC will be wound up with the six nations commitee running the new tournament.therefore whatever previous deals were done will go out the window.lets hope we get resolution soon.

Cookiemunster

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

The english and french clubs were fully justified and it was their right to give notice of their exit.therefore the whole future of the competition was up in the air.There was no tv deal for ERC to sell as the competition for the following seasons was not agreed.ERC simply went ahead and sold rights. ERC has to take some of the blame for making the situation worse.It didnt have to sign this new tv deal,it could and should have negotiated and worked things out rather than making it all worse.Did PRL tell ERC that they were going with BT,did ERC tell PRL that they would only sign with sky and that being in ERC meant you would have to go with sky? we simply dont know what went on behind the scenes.
I know many irish want to lay all the blame on the evil english-but all have to take blame whether that be the ERC,The PRL,the celtic unions for refusing to negotiate any changes early on etc etc
But whats past is past.We all now want a resolution.And it looks pretty likely ERC will be wound up with the six nations commitee running the new tournament.therefore whatever previous deals were done will go out the window.lets hope we get resolution soon.

PRL signed a deal with BT for a competition that didn't exist. They did this without informing anyone, not even the RFU.
The ERC/Sky deal was negotiated with the agreement of all the unions including the RFU, who hadn't resigned from the ERC. It didn't matter if the French were involved as it only covered the UK and Ireland.
Also the Sky deal was announced the day after the BT deal. It's quite obvious it wasn't negotiated and signed off in 24hrs.

This whole debacle started with PRL negotiating the BT deal behind everyones back rather than negotiating. You are correct that the rest aren't blameless, but the main issue is and always has been the BT deal.

Cookiemunster

Anyways, the latest rumour.

Simon Thomas ‏@simonrug 3m So, the whisper seems to be a Euro peace deal could be achieved by BT stepping away from Europe, maybe in return for England autumn Tests.

odin_ie

But the RFU and FFR were signed up to provide teams were they not? If so the ERC were totally within their remit to sell the product, how the unions resolved the issue of providing teams to compete is not an ERC problem.

rrpc

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

The english and french clubs were fully justified and it was their right to give notice of their exit.therefore the whole future of the competition was up in the air.There was no tv deal for ERC to sell as the competition for the following seasons was not agreed.ERC simply went ahead and sold rights. ERC has to take some of the blame for making the situation worse.It didnt have to sign this new tv deal,it could and should have negotiated and worked things out rather than making it all worse.Did PRL tell ERC that they were going with BT,did ERC tell PRL that they would only sign with sky and that being in ERC meant you would have to go with sky? we simply dont know what went on behind the scenes.

PRL were on the board of ERC. ERC were not on the board of PRL. You can deduce from that, who knew what.

A couple of weeks after the French and English exercised their two year warning right, the ERC were given the go ahead to 'conclude a deal with Sky'. There was no objection to this from anyone at the time. Search around and you will find nothing but silence on the matter. Again, PRL were on the board and would have known this.

A month and a half later, PRL started talking to BT and at that point sent 'urgent' emails to Sky and ERC telling them they wouldn't be part of any TV deal.

That was the end of any hope of a deal on the future of the ERC competitions. Pretty damn quickly after the two year notice was issued.

In similar vain to the "glossary" and "battlegrounds" in post 1, anyone want to do a Timeline?

bilston

BBC 5 Live seem to be hinting at a likely deal today in their news bulletins.

WorldRugby99

but who gave the ERC the go ahead to sign a new sky deal? the competition was clearly up in the air after the english/french clubs announcement to leave.why would PRL or even the RFU happily go along with a new deal being announced when at that time-(A) negotiations were ongoing over the future and (B) knowing the BT deal was imminent?
I seem to recall it differently-that english clubs announced a new deal,that the english league would be on BT and that english clubs in any future european tournament would have their games on BT,knowing that at that time,as was the case,the future of europe was not settled.
Sky then virtually the next day announced ,along with ERC, that they had the tv deal for the heineken again.It came across as some sort of retaliation by SKy/ERC-you may have announced this,but we are going ahead just as before. Yet this new heinekn cup they signed up-definitely did not have english/french participation-as they had not signed up again to be part of it. The WRU was committed to providing teams but not the english/french. You seem to be saying or suggesting all the nations agreed to this new deal with sky-where is the evidence of this?i see nothing suggesting this.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

In similar vain to the "glossary" and "battlegrounds" in post 1, anyone want to do a Timeline?

Can't do it in work, but might stick something up this evening if nobody else has by then. There will be circles and trains and little else really....

Cookiemunster

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

but who gave the ERC the go ahead to sign a new sky deal? the competition was clearly up in the air after the english/french clubs announcement to leave.why would PRL or even the RFU happily go along with a new deal being announced when at that time-(A) negotiations were ongoing over the future and (B) knowing the BT deal was imminent?

Nobody outside PRL and BT knew the BT deal was imminent. PRL announced it out of the blue the day before the ERC board meeting. As I said previously not even the RFU knew about it.
Peter Wheeler however as the PRL rep on the ERC board did know about it and also knew about the Sky deal, but did and said nothing.

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

I seem to recall it differently-that english clubs announced a new deal,that the english league would be on BT and that english clubs in any future european tournament would have their games on BT,knowing that at that time,as was the case,the future of europe was not settled.
Sky then virtually the next day announced ,along with ERC, that they had the tv deal for the heineken again.It came across as some sort of retaliation by SKy/ERC-you may have announced this,but we are going ahead just as before. Yet this new heinekn cup they signed up-definitely did not have english/french participation-as they had not signed up again to be part of it. The WRU was committed to providing teams but not the english/french. You seem to be saying or suggesting all the nations agreed to this new deal with sky-where is the evidence of this?i see nothing suggesting this.

ERC/Sky had been negotiating the deal for a few months. They didn't sign it out of the blue. The board of ERC including PRL rep Peter Wheeler knew about the Sky deal. Nobody knew about the BT deal.

OldRio

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

but who gave the ERC the go ahead to sign a new sky deal? the competition was clearly up in the air after the english/french clubs announcement to leave.why would PRL or even the RFU happily go along with a new deal being announced when at that time-(A) negotiations were ongoing over the future and (B) knowing the BT deal was imminent?
I seem to recall it differently-that english clubs announced a new deal,that the english league would be on BT and that english clubs in any future european tournament would have their games on BT,knowing that at that time,as was the case,the future of europe was not settled.
Sky then virtually the next day announced ,along with ERC, that they had the tv deal for the heineken again.It came across as some sort of retaliation by SKy/ERC-you may have announced this,but we are going ahead just as before. Yet this new heinekn cup they signed up-definitely did not have english/french participation-as they had not signed up again to be part of it. The WRU was committed to providing teams but not the english/french. You seem to be saying or suggesting all the nations agreed to this new deal with sky-where is the evidence of this?i see nothing suggesting this.

I always find research a great help. Check Part 1 of this. 10,000 posts on the issue. This new thread will quickly reach 10,000 again if we keep rehashing untruths as truths.

BBDBB

The WRU are cautiously optimistic

The Welsh Rugby Union is pleased at the progress made at today's Six Nations meeting in Paris towards agreement for the European competition structure from next season.

Representatives of the WRU described the meeting of stakeholder nations and clubs as positive and constructive.
The WRU continues to remain confident that the progress now achieved could lead to a positive outcome for all stakeholders.

The WRU delegation at today's Paris meeting was Group Chief Executive, Roger Lewis, WRU Chairman, David Pickering and Group Finance Director, Steve Phillips.

Representatives of the French and English clubs and the Welsh Regions were also in attendance.

The cautious optimism is based on a detailed structure of actions to be pursued immediately.

http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/29593.php#.Uvtor0J_sWw

keps

It is really frustrating when there is never a 'result' after any of these meetings!

Just optimism about the thrust of the discussions and hope for a resolution:mad:

It's enough to drive you to drink- now there's any idea.

WorldRugby99

OldRio wrote: »

I always find research a great help. Check Part 1 of this. 10,000 posts on the issue. This new thread will quickly reach 10,000 again if we keep rehashing untruths as truths.

its all very well you coming out with this-but prove the point-show me hard fact that the PRL signed up to a new heineken cup,shown by sky ? ERC had no formal or informal agreement with the english (or french for that matter) to sell their rights to a competition they may not be in as far as im aware. poster before said peter wheeler knew,but said nothing at the meeting-but did he agree and sign anywhere? there seems to be no evidence of that.Provide the evidence that ERC had an official and legal agreement to continue to sell english rights to sky.And i will happily accept it as fact. They obviosuly didnt as otherwise ERC and sky would be taking PRL to court.

keps

Irish Times - press release re HC

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/heineken-cup-discussions-make-progress-1.1688761

Cookiemunster

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

its all very well you coming out with this-but prove the point-show me hard fact that the PRL signed up to a new heineken cup,shown by sky ? ERC had no formal or informal agreement with the english (or french for that matter) to sell their rights to a competition they may not be in as far as im aware. poster before said peter wheeler knew,but said nothing at the meeting-but did he agree and sign anywhere? there seems to be no evidence of that.Provide the evidence that ERC had an official and legal agreement to continue to sell english rights to sky.And i will happily accept it as fact. They obviosuly didnt as otherwise ERC and sky would be taking PRL to court.

Where are you getting the idea that ERC sold PRLs rights? It didn't, it sold the rights to the tournament that it owned and that the RFU were a stakeholder of. PRL sold the rights of a tournament that didn't exist.

OldRio

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

its all very well you coming out with this-but prove the point-show me hard fact that the PRL signed up to a new heineken cup,shown by sky ? ERC had no formal or informal agreement with the english (or french for that matter) to sell their rights to a competition they may not be in as far as im aware. poster before said peter wheeler knew,but said nothing at the meeting-but did he agree and sign anywhere? there seems to be no evidence of that.Provide the evidence that ERC had an official and legal agreement to continue to sell english rights to sky.And i will happily accept it as fact. They obviosuly didnt as otherwise ERC and sky would be taking PRL to court.

Deary me. So much wrong. See previous post.

rrpc

Here's a start to the timeline. All 2012 dates, but that's when the most interesting stuff happened

Date/Link|Summary
19th May 2012| Leinster beat Ulster 42-14 in HEC final (not relevant but a good reference point)

1st Jun 2012| PRL announce their intention to withdraw in two years time. French are expected to follow suit.
|Mark McCafferty says that he hopes discussions can commence soon regarding "the future of European cup rugby, including qualification, competition formats and ambition to expand into new markets". ERC also confirm this

|Areas of contention at this stage are:
|1. It (PRL/LNR) plans to propose a number of changes, including overhauling the qualification process and reducing the number of clubs in the Heineken Cup from 24 to 20.
|2. The English and French clubs will propose that six sides each from the Top 14, the Premiership and the Pro 12 qualify for the Heineken Cup, with the remaining two spots being filled by the country that provides the winners of the Heineken and Amlin Cups.

6th Jun 2012| ERC claim that a meeting held on this date gave the ERC the go ahead to conclude the Sky deal.

Late July 2012|(allegedly) PRL informed ERC and Sky by email that they would not be party to any new contract. Needs citation.

23rd Aug 2012| First mention of another competition.

*12th Sep 2012| BT/PRL announce TV deal. BT CEO says: "The Heineken Cup under its current contract has another season to run and that will be the end of it, and we’re looking to set up a brand new tournament from then. And we’ve already secured the rights to that." *This may have been on the 11th, but could find no links for that date.

12th Sep 2012| (Later that day ) ERC announce new Sky deal

Sep 2012 >|Row ensues

12th Dec 2012|Fourth meeting of ERC fails to resolve deadlock.

2nd Apr 2013|Welsh talks with PRL confirmed although Anglo-Welsh league deemed unlikely.

19th May 2013| The governance issue now out in the open along with the sidelining of the ERC

20th Aug 2013| South African and American NFL teams are mooted to be interested in the RCC.

20th Sep 2013| ERC appoint Canadian Graham Mewes as mediator to try and resolve the situation.

22nd Sep 2013|The Rugby Champions Cup makes it's first appearance.

26th Sep 2013|PRL and LNR reject attempts at mediation saying they have no dispute with the ERC therefore there is nothing to mediate.


Edit: Just to add that the links are to various newspapers and news sites as well as the ERC website. The majority of the links are to UK news sites, just in case I'm being accused of bias

Phonehead

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

its all very well you coming out with this-but prove the point-show me hard fact that the PRL signed up to a new heineken cup,shown by sky ? ERC had no formal or informal agreement with the english (or french for that matter) to sell their rights to a competition they may not be in as far as im aware. poster before said peter wheeler knew,but said nothing at the meeting-but did he agree and sign anywhere? there seems to be no evidence of that.Provide the evidence that ERC had an official and legal agreement to continue to sell english rights to sky.And i will happily accept it as fact. They obviosuly didnt as otherwise ERC and sky would be taking PRL to court.

Oh Lord.... it's started again

WorldRugby99

OldRio wrote: »

Deary me. So much wrong. See previous post.

i think people on here have spent too much time reading the irish times drivel,handed to them by their friends at the irish rugy union.
the ERC sold the rights to a tournament that french and english clubs were not signed up and committed to-that is fact. ERC had the rights of a tournmanent to sell and they were entitled to do so. But the PRL are also fully within their rights having not signed up to the next heineken cup,to say we wont be part of it-that is indisputable yes?
The PRL have no legal commitment to ERC and next years heineken cup,having given notice of quitting.Im not really sure what the argument here even is-it seems some just want like lapdogs to aaccept and agree with whatever the IRFU say.
to me,having given legal notice to quit,PRL were fully entitled to negotiate with other broadcasters,to talk about other competitions.And the ERC is likewise entitled to carry on with their tournament minus english,french,welsh or whoever.
Im not really sure ERC or PRL have done anything wrong other than go their own way and do their own thing and not negotiate/try to work things out.

keps

rrpc wrote: »

BT/PRL announce TV deal. BT CEO says: "The Heineken Cup under its current contract has another season to run and that will be the end of it, and we’re looking to set up a brand new tournament from then. And we’ve already secured the rights to that."

When you think about it - that was an outrageous comment from the CEO of BT.