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

rrpc · 12-02-2014 2:58pm

keps wrote: »

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

There are actually quite a lot of quotes from that time period that would have you reaching for your blood pressure medication :eek:

iDave · 12-02-2014 3:00pm

rrpc wrote: »

There are actually quite a lot of quotes from that time period that would have you reaching for your blood pressure medication :eek:

Owning a whole sport

12-02-2014 3:02pm

keps wrote: »

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

It also puts into perspective the idea that "The BT deal was originally for the ERC".

OldRio · 12-02-2014 3:05pm

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

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.

Some people want to learn others do not. You obviously are in the latter camp. I told you research would be a good start but you thought differently. You have previous for this therefore the ignore button will be employed.

who_me · 12-02-2014 3:21pm

Wondering what progress can be made.. the Celtalians conceded on pretty much every front, bar governance and the TV deal. And if the governance is conceded, doesn't that pretty much mean they've conceded on everything.

It's at least helpful they're talking rather than conducing megaphone diplomacy; but I'm wondering what's going on behind the curtain.

molloyjh · 12-02-2014 3:23pm

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

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.

The HEC does not require the PRL or LNR sides to exist so technically if those clubs weren't signed up to the HEC then the weren't signed up the deal with Sky.
The ERC claim that the PRL and LNR were party to the decision to extend the Sky contract. You can chose to believe that or not, but none of us know for a fact that they were or that they weren't.
The IRFU have said precious little in this debate so I'm not sure how anyone can be their "lapdogs".
The PRL sold the rights to BT for a competition that did not exist. They were not signed up to the HEC and no Union, not even the RFU, had authorised any other competition taking place. No competition can exist until the Unions give it their approval. Seeing as the RFU didn't even know about the BT deal this was a hugely presumptuous move by the PRL.

In summary the ERC sold rights to a competition that existed and had Union approval, apparently with agreement from everyone. The PRL sold rights to a competition that never existed, had no Union approval and did so behind everyone else's back.

keps · 12-02-2014 3:43pm

Looks like IBF hasn't didcovered this new thread yet:P:P:P

WorldRugby99 · 12-02-2014 4:24pm

molloyjh wrote: »

The HEC does not require the PRL or LNR sides to exist so technically if those clubs weren't signed up to the HEC then the weren't signed up the deal with Sky.

The ERC claim that the PRL and LNR were party to the decision to extend the Sky contract. You can chose to believe that or not, but none of us know for a fact that they were or that they weren't.

The IRFU have said precious little in this debate so I'm not sure how anyone can be their "lapdogs".

The PRL sold the rights to BT for a competition that did not exist. They were not signed up to the HEC and no Union, not even the RFU, had authorised any other competition taking place. No competition can exist until the Unions give it their approval. Seeing as the RFU didn't even know about the BT deal this was a hugely presumptuous move by the PRL.

In summary the ERC sold rights to a competition that existed and had Union approval, apparently with agreement from everyone. The PRL sold rights to a competition that never existed, had no Union approval and did so behind everyone else's back.

But they cant have had universal approval because at that time the french and english had withdrawn.the unions may well have have given a nod of approval but should they have done that knowing the clubs were still in negotation and unlikely to agree? The ERC had rights to sell yes,but they knew full well they were agreeing to something that would cause trouble-you could say it was almost provocative with the whole tournament up in the air at that point-they should have waited and negotiated until it was settled. PRL had withdrawn from next years ERC run tournament whether that was with or without union approval-the rfu havent commented or given an approved position-so they were entitled to sell their rights to any future tournament they were involved in to someone else,as they had already withdrawn from ERC.whether there was something formal set up as a replacement is neither here nor there.If the PRL are doing something they arent entitled to-then why arent ERC or sky suing them?you say ERC claim they were party to the decision but there clearly was no legal document backing that up.

rrpc · 12-02-2014 4:32pm

Updated the timeline. Some more 2013 dates.

thomond2006 · 12-02-2014 4:33pm

I think there's a difference in the time frame between when the Sky deal was agreed and when the Sky deal was announced. If I remember right the Sky deal was announced very soon after the BT Sport announcement, the timing screams reactive measure. Based on that I don't think you can say (unless you have inside information) that the LNR and PRL had tendered their notice of termination before the Sky contract extension was agreed.

rrpc · 12-02-2014 4:35pm

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

But they cant have had universal approval because at that time the french and english had withdrawn.the unions may well have have given a nod of approval but should they have done that knowing the clubs were still in negotation and unlikely to agree? The ERC had rights to sell yes,but they knew full well they were agreeing to something that would cause trouble-you could say it was almost provocative with the whole tournament up in the air at that point-they should have waited and negotiated until it was settled. PRL had withdrawn from next years ERC run tournament whether that was with or without union approval-the rfu havent commented or given an approved position-so they were entitled to sell their rights to any future tournament they were involved in to someone else,as they had already withdrawn from ERC.whether there was something formal set up as a replacement is neither here nor there.If the PRL are doing something they arent entitled to-then why arent ERC or sky suing them?you say ERC claim they were party to the decision but there clearly was no legal document backing that up.

Why don't you use sentences? It's impossible to read what you're writing. It would help if you hit the spacebar the odd time after a punctuation mark as well.

rrpc · 12-02-2014 4:38pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

I think there's a difference in the time frame between when the Sky deal was agreed and when the Sky deal was announced. If I remember right the Sky deal was announced very soon after the BT Sport announcement, the timing screams reactive measure. Based on that I don't think you can say (unless you have inside information) that the LNR and PRL had tendered their notice of termination before the Sky contract extension was agreed.

I have the June meeting where the decision to conclude the Sky deal was agreed. The announcements are in the timeline as announcements. We just don't know when the negotiations on the Sky deal started.

Is that your question?

thomond2006 · 12-02-2014 4:38pm

rrpc wrote: »

I have the June meeting where the decision to conclude the Sky deal was agreed. The announcements are in the timeline as announcements. We just don't know when the negotiations on the Sky deal started.

Is that your question?

I'll read your timeline before posting again! Thanks.

marienbad · 12-02-2014 4:39pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

I think there's a difference in the time frame between when the Sky deal was agreed and when the Sky deal was announced. If I remember right the Sky deal was announced very soon after the BT Sport announcement, the timing screams reactive measure. Based on that I don't think you can say (unless you have inside information) that the LNR and PRL had tendered their notice of termination before the Sky contract extension was agreed.

My memory may be incorrect but I thought the date of the Sky announcement was known and the BT one was designed to trump that.

jacothelad · 12-02-2014 4:41pm

rrpc wrote: »

Why don't you use sentences? It's impossible to read what you're writing. It would help if you hit the spacebar the odd time after a punctuation mark as well.

I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference, Punctuated nonsense is still nonsense.

.ak · 12-02-2014 4:43pm

rrpc wrote: »

Why don't you use sentences? It's impossible to read what you're writing. It would help if you hit the spacebar the odd time after a punctuation mark as well.

jacothelad wrote: »

I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference, Punctuated nonsense is still nonsense.

The most important rule in our charter is.... Don't be a dick.

molloyjh · 12-02-2014 5:25pm

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

But they cant have had universal approval because at that time the french and english had withdrawn.

Surely if they had withdrawn then their approval isn't necessary? If they weren't going to be a part of it why would they have a right to have a say in it?

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

the unions may well have have given a nod of approval but should they have done that knowing the clubs were still in negotation and unlikely to agree?

Both the PRL and LNR were present. The Unions didn't need to consider them as they were there to speak for themselves.

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

The ERC had rights to sell yes,but they knew full well they were agreeing to something that would cause trouble-you could say it was almost provocative with the whole tournament up in the air at that point-they should have waited and negotiated until it was settled.

People keep talking about the ERC like it's a completely separate group of people. The Board that make these decisions is made up of the Unions and the club reps. It isn't some shadowy third party doing all of this.

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

PRL had withdrawn from next years ERC run tournament whether that was with or without union approval-the rfu havent commented or given an approved position-so they were entitled to sell their rights to any future tournament they were involved in to someone else,as they had already withdrawn from ERC.

The Union don't have to approve the PRL pulling out. They do have to approve the set-up of any new competition. No Union approved any new competition prior to the PRL agreeing to a TV deal for it. In fact nearly 2 years later there still isn't Union approval for any new competition.

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

whether there was something formal set up as a replacement is neither here nor there.

Yes it is. How can you sell rights to something that doesn't exist?

WorldRugby99 wrote: »

If the PRL are doing something they arent entitled to-then why arent ERC or sky suing them?you say ERC claim they were party to the decision but there clearly was no legal document backing that up.

I'm not even sure what this means. The ERC Board, which is made in part of the PRL and LNR, apparently agreed to renewing the Sky deal. As I said you can believe they are telling the truth or you can believe they are lying. Neither opinion has proof to fully back them up.

marienbad wrote: »

My memory may be incorrect but I thought the date of the Sky announcement was known and the BT one was designed to trump that.

That's my interpretation of events, but that's all. Facts are very light on the ground here and we're all going off interpretation.

its_phil · 12-02-2014 5:40pm

Jeez lads you should see David Moffett on Twitter. A bitter old man, giving politicians promises he can't deliver. Utter idiot

Phonehead · 12-02-2014 5:46pm

marienbad wrote: »

My memory may be incorrect but I thought the date of the Sky announcement was known and the BT one was designed to trump that.

I was under the same impression, the Sky deal was agreed well before the announcement and the only reason an announcement was made was because PRL made their BT announcement, was it not customary based on previous annoucments for the ERC to make their TV announcements in the new year

rrpc · 12-02-2014 5:58pm

Phonehead wrote: »

I was under the same impression, the Sky deal was agreed well before the announcement and the only reason an announcement was made was because PRL made their BT announcement, was it not customary based on previous annoucments for the ERC to make their TV announcements in the new year

There was an ERC meeting scheduled. It was probably expected that the Sky deal would be announced after that meeting, but PRL gazumped them with their BT announcement the day before the meeting.

The next ERC meeting was in December afaik. Not sure they'd have delayed it that long.

Phonehead · 12-02-2014 7:34pm

rrpc wrote: »

There was an ERC meeting scheduled. It was probably expected that the Sky deal would be announced after that meeting, but PRL gazumped them with their BT announcement the day before the meeting.

The next ERC meeting was in December afaik. Not sure they'd have delayed it that long.

Good to know, I was trying to figure out when the tv deals were normally announced. Anyway what I think everybody should agree is that the ERC simply didn't ring Sky the day after the BT announcement and ask them if they were grand to go again! it baffles me how some people believe and try to sell this scenario.

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2014 7:52pm

The BT deal was not announced to trump the Sky deal. The BT deal was announced after a general meeting of PRL where all 14 clubs voted on it. That meeting was the day before an ERC meeting, because the ERC meeting was originally the first item on the agenda. The announcement date of the Sky deal was not known, because there was no announcement date agreed.

EDIT: They should have, in my opinion, held fire on announcing it. But so should the ERC.

molloyjh · 12-02-2014 8:53pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The BT deal was not announced to trump the Sky deal. The BT deal was announced after a general meeting of PRL where all 14 clubs voted on it. That meeting was the day before an ERC meeting, because the ERC meeting was originally the first item on the agenda. The announcement date of the Sky deal was not known, because there was no announcement date agreed.

EDIT: They should have, in my opinion, held fire on announcing it. But so should the ERC.

keps · 12-02-2014 9:09pm

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE:pac::pac:

eireannBEAR · 12-02-2014 9:35pm

.ak wrote: »

The most important rule in our charter is.... Don't be a dick.

Your a brilliant mod btw.

legendary.xix · 12-02-2014 9:37pm

Fair play to the Italians for trying to go their own way. On the previous thread which was closed, someone was asking is Scotland will have more teams? As was pointed out they've no money. Two clubs is too few to develop the game. Italy seem to believe that and are even expanding more. Scotland Rugby won't develop much until they expand with two more teams and create more interest around their country.