Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

26-09-2013 01:14PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It is absolutely the truth. All evidence points to them being very happy to negotiate together.

I guess some people just need it not to be the case to help them sleep at night. But the original demands are STILL not even being considered (participation is, governance isn't). So how anyone can try to, as I said, rewrite history is unimaginable.

zero evidence does.

"Actions speak louder than words"

Actions include signing a BT deal for a new competition (at the very least signalling the intention that they were interested in a new competition and not an ERC one).

PRL may have said they were happy to co-operate (if you want to cherry pick those releases) and have also said that they were never going to work with the ERC (if you want me to cherry pick those releases).

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 01:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

zero evidence does.

"Actions speak louder than words"

Actions include signing a BT deal for a new competition (at the very least signalling the intention that they were interested in a new competition and not an ERC one).

PRL may have said they were happy to co-operate (if you want to cherry pick those releases) and have also said that they were never going to work with the ERC (if you want me to cherry pick those releases).

Can you show me an article from 2012 where any of them said they were not going to remain in the Heinken Cup?

The BT deal was intended for the ERC. That is what was said when it was signed. Can you show me any evidence that the contract would not have worked within the ERC?

You can show the quote from McCaffferty saying they weren't going to play in an ERC run comeptition, but that was clearly a reference to the governance of the competition. Why would both sides go through the costs of setting up this independent company in Switzerland if they could get all their demands met within the current structure?

As I said. It's just people attempting to justify the profligacy of the ERC.

bilston · 26-09-2013 01:21PM

I'm coming to the conclusion that this whole thing has been merely a battle in the overall Sky v BT war and that Rugby Union is being used as a pawn in that conflict

I don't know who the good guys and who the bad guys are but I kind of think that the generals are from Sky and BT and that the foot soldiers are the Rugby administrators who are maybe being egged on a bit by their broadcasting masters.

Put it this way I think it would have been a heck of a lot easier to have come up with a solution to this if there were no broadcasting deals in place.

molloyjh · 26-09-2013 01:24PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But the fact they did that just showed why they cannot remain.

I stopped reading when I got to this line. There is absolutely nothing what-so- ever to prove that this is a "fact".

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 01:25PM

bilston wrote: »

I'm coming to the conclusion that this whole thing has been merely a battle in the overall Sky v BT war and that Rugby Union is being used as a pawn in that conflict

I don't know who the good guys and who the bad guys are but I kind of think that the generals are from Sky and BT and that the foot soldiers are the Rugby administrators who are maybe being egged on a bit by their broadcasting masters.

Put it this way I think it would have been a heck of a lot easier to have come up with a solution to this if there were no broadcasting deals in place.

I think if there was no broadcasting deals there would have been a lot less money at stake, so probably!

There's also broadcasting deals in France that have been influential financially.

Winters · 26-09-2013 01:25PM

"Their injuries raise the issue of whether the balance between rest and training/playing is set correctly in professional rugby in England and France. What has been overlooked in what has become a strident dispute over the future of the Heineken Cup is the demands on the players: a side-effect of the changes wanted by Premiership Rugby and the Top 14 would be a lengthening of the season for international players in Ireland and Wales in particular."

"The report said that the England coaches were concerned that Premiership clubs were overly concerned with the physical side of the game to the detriment of rudimentary skills: why try to find a way around defenders when you can just plough through them?"

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/26/the-breakdown-england-injuries

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 01:26PM

molloyjh wrote: »

I stopped reading when I got to this line. There is absolutely nothing what-so- ever to prove that this is a "fact".

They've had 3 meetings this year. It's an accusation levelled at them by Premiership Rugby and it makes sense to me.

Why have they only had 3 meetings this year? Why have they delayed the next meeting so long when so much is happening?

Winters · 26-09-2013 01:27PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's also broadcasting deals in France that have been influential financially.

And that's another war that's going to kick off soon.

I wonder if LNR will negiotiate a European aspect to their next Top14 deal with Canal+ or BeIn Sport of whomever.

26-09-2013 01:32PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Can you show me an article from 2012 where any of them said they were not going to remain in the Heinken Cup?

The BT deal was intended for the ERC. That is what was said when it was signed. Can you show me any evidence that the contract would not have worked within the ERC?

You can show the quote from McCaffferty saying they weren't going to play in an ERC run comeptition, but that was clearly a reference to the governance of the competition. Why would both sides go through the costs of setting up this independent company in Switzerland if they could get all their demands met within the current structure?

As I said. It's just people attempting to justify the profligacy of the ERC.

Firstly - My point is that what PRL have said isn't worth a dime. Why would I spend any time trying to find a worthless release? Their actions, which include signing a deal in 2012 with BT speak volumes.

Secondly - The BT deal was intended for the ERC? I'm afraid that makes almost no sense whatsoever as Peter Wheeler (part of the ERC and PRL) was privvy to the information that the ERC was signing a deal with Sky. Surely he would have mentioned this to the ERC if that were the case? Or perhaps advised PRL that there were advanced negotiations with Sky already in place? Who was the BT deal signed with? what organisation? Was it with 12 premiership clubs, each as signatories, or was it PRL?

Thirdly - Even if you think the ERC are doing the world's worst job at running a competition which has been widely lauded as a massive, massive success, that does not take away anything from the fact that this is a straightforward Power grab by PRL and LNR. What does the ERC have to do with that? Other than 'be' the other party?

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 01:32PM

Winters wrote: »

And that's another war that's going to kick off soon.

I wonder if LNR will negiotiate a European aspect to their next Top14 deal with Canal+ or BeIn Sport of whomever.

That seems to be the indication. Supposedly they're on the verge of signing something. Some indication that the 70 million figure from this summer included that projected contract with the Qataris as well. But it's all a guessing game.

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 01:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

firstly - My point is that what PRL have said isn't worth a dime. Why would I spend any time trying to find a worthless release?

So rather than listen to what anyone has to say, you'll make things up yourself?

second - The BT deal was intended for the ERC? I'm afraid that makes almost no sense whatsoever as Peter Wheeler (part of the ERC and PRL) was privvy to the information that the ERC was signing a deal with Sky. What on earth are you talking about? Who was the BT deal signed with? what organisation? Was it with 12 premiership clubs, each as signatories, or was it PRL?

The deal doesn't have to be signed with the ERC to be for the ERC competitions. Wheeler, through PRL, has made it very clear he was not involved with the Sky deal. In fact Premiership Rugby informed Sky as well as the ERC in writing that they were not going to be included and they still signed a deal. So that's an issue between the ERC and Sky.

The BT deal was signed with PRL. That doesn't preclude it from extending to a competition being run by the ERC. There is no accord in place from this season on, so absolutely no reason why not.

bilston · 26-09-2013 01:44PM

I wonder if we are ever likely to hear from Sky or BT on this. I guess we won't but it would help add to the debate:D

26-09-2013 01:48PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So rather than listen to what anyone has to say, you'll make things up yourself?

I've not made up the fact (not an opinion, not a conjecture, not a thought) that PRL signed a deal with BT Vision in 2012 and then included this wording in their press release.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/20493.php#.UkQs2YakrYE

• Exclusive live broadcast rights to matches of Aviva Premiership teams in any future European competitions for three years starting from the 2014-15 season.

Also, If you're particularly after PRL press interactions. Try these two.
Deal announce - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2202334/BT-Vision-announce-new-rugby-deal.html

3 days later - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2203843/Premier-Rugby-TV-deal-latest-Mark-McCafferty-tells-Europe-reject-it.html

either take them at their word. Or don't.

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 01:52PM

Oh right, the Daily Mail!

I guess things are getting desperate over there!

McCafferty clearly said that day, although not sure if that rag quoted him fully, that their first priority was remaining in the Heineken Cup.

26-09-2013 01:55PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh right, the Daily Mail!

I guess things are getting desperate over there!

McCafferty clearly said that day, although not sure if that rag quoted him fully, that their first priority was remaining in the Heineken Cup.

I am not spending all day googling articles.
They were the first two.
Are they direct quotations from McCafferty? They've been supplied as such.
If they were not direct quotes, they would not appear as such.

Again, your demands for evidence are ridiculous.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience · 26-09-2013 01:56PM

Ya the mail may be a rag but they wouldn't quote someone directly unless it was a direct quote

Winters · 26-09-2013 01:58PM

bilston wrote: »

I wonder if we are ever likely to hear from Sky or BT on this. I guess we won't but it would help add to the debate:D

Apart from BT saying they wanted to 'own a sport'?...

I think Heineken came out with a comment or two. They must equally be disappointed..

There is an opening for Pro12 sponsorship next year Mr. Heineken..

26-09-2013 01:58PM

Also, distrusting a international newspaper's reporting while swallowing an organisations releases whole without even a grain of salt is absolutely backwards.

OldRio · 26-09-2013 02:03PM

Some newspapers are more equal than others.

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 02:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not spending all day googling articles.
They were the first two.
Are they direct quotations from McCafferty? They've been supplied as such.
If they were not direct quotes, they would not appear as such.

Again, your demands for evidence are ridiculous.

OK well if you're happy with your views being represented by the Daily Mail that is your choice and of course you are welcome to it. I'm not demanding evidence. If you want to make statements and not back them up it's completely up to you.

They did say, early and often, they wanted to remain.

Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCafferty, who will lead negotiations on behalf of the English clubs, is wary that the clock is ticking and is hoping for some significant progress at today's meeting. "We are at a delicate stage," he told The Independent. "There is no definite timetable, but we are getting to the point where we need to see some progress because the clock cannot be allowed to run down continually. We've already spent six months on this and when next season begins, clubs need to know exactly what they're trying to qualify for.

"Together with the French, we're keen to make the case for a strengthening of both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup. Two 20-team competitions, underpinned by a third tournament aimed at developing rugby nations like Russia and Georgia, Spain and Portugal… we believe very strongly in this and we'll push hard for it."

Speaking to The Guardian, McCafferty insisted that an agreement on the format must be reached before the equally contentious broadcast rights deal can be resolved. "I appreciate that there are very difficult issues to resolve but I feel there is a solution there that would benefit everyone," he said. "It is in the interests of no one that this drags on and on. We have put a lot of effort into this and we have shown flexibility. I hope we can make a breakthrough, but the longer we go without resolving anything, the more we will all have to start planning for alternatives."

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 02:10PM

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Ya the mail may be a rag but they wouldn't quote someone directly unless it was a direct quote

I'm not disputing the quotes attributed to him. I would definitely dispute any "unnamed sources" and certainly in this case it is very obvious to reading other papers accounts of his statement that they omitted a lot of what he said, easier to put it out of context I guess.

rrpc · 26-09-2013 02:16PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

My statement was about the TV deal, which they had informed Sky directly of in writing as well it seems.

They didn't say the ERC was finished in 2012. They said they were pulling out pending their demands being met. But they said consistently up until this year their priority was to remain in the competition. It was only until the May meeting (the 2nd of the year!) that they said otherwise.

BT Vision said so in their press release on 12th September:

We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament.

You can't make statements like that or agreements that mean that and have any meaningful desire to continue with the ERC.

geekington · 26-09-2013 02:19PM

Hi Guys,

Hope this is appropriate to link to but 22Drop Out just tweeted the following link on Twitter. From reading it the author is either a wind up merchant or else has some inside knowledge about the BT / PRL agreement. I'm always sceptical about "insider info" but reading it does put everythign that has happened in to a somewhat logical place.

The key point is that BT promised PRL a significant sum of money if they could set up a new European competition whereby they would have sole TV rights - ultimately, it is BT looking to muscle sky out of the picture!

http://www.606v2.com/t48202p50-why-have-the-prl-and-bt-not-explained-their-blue-print-for-their-concept-competition#2302119

26-09-2013 02:20PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK well if you're happy with your views being represented by the Daily Mail that is your choice and of course you are welcome to it. I'm not demanding evidence. If you want to make statements and not back them up it's completely up to you.

They did say, early and often, they wanted to remain.

If I say something, and it is printed as said in the Daily Mail, then what's the difference between that and being printed in Time Magazine?
If I didn't say it, it sure as **** would not be up there a year later still misrepresenting what I had said.

Within 3 days of signing a new deal, they've said that it's their way or no way.

Again, you are cherry picking exactly what you want to hear from them.

26-09-2013 02:21PM

geekington wrote: »

The key point is that BT promised PRL a significant sum of money if they could set up a new European competition whereby they would have sole TV rights - ultimately, it is BT looking to muscle sky out of the picture!

http://www.606v2.com/t48202p50-why-have-the-prl-and-bt-not-explained-their-blue-print-for-their-concept-competition#2302119

something which we've all suspected and pointed out many many times.

(not sure I'd trust the link, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to believe that to be the case)

molloyjh · 26-09-2013 02:23PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They've had 3 meetings this year. It's an accusation levelled at them by Premiership Rugby and it makes sense to me.

Why have they only had 3 meetings this year? Why have they delayed the next meeting so long when so much is happening?

PRL are every bit as much a part of the ERC as the IRFU. They have been part and parcel to the agreements on when meetings take place etc. You have no idea what is or isn't being said in these meetings or who is proposing or rejecting what. Again you seem happy to swallow everything and anything that the PRL say without question and then present that as "fact" when you really have no idea if it is.

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 02:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If I say something, and it is printed as said in the Daily Mail, then what's the difference between that and being printed in Time Magazine?
If I didn't say it, it sure as **** would not be up there a year later still misrepresenting what I had said.

Within 3 days of signing a new deal, they've said that it's their way or no way.

Again, you are cherry picking exactly what you want to hear from them.

I think you mean that the Daily Mail said that. Here are the sum total of McCafferty's quotes in the article:

'It would be a big call for the rest of Europe not to go with us.

'We'd be providing a much stronger TV deal for them (other nations) but if we got to the point where all negotiations are exhausted, then we'd go it alone because we'd still be earning more money domestically than we currently do now out of domestic and European rugby.'

'People will have to make choices but this is a fairer system and one that provides more money as well,"

So rather than saying "their way or no way" they actually said if they couldn't conclude negotiations successfully, they would have to go alone. Which is entirely different.

I don't understand how you are trying to prove McCafferty had no interest in negotiating by giving a direct quote of him in which he says he's going to negotiate. You've entrenched yourself in this belief that they never wanted to negotiate but the reality is far different. The negotiations continued until May 2013 and that's a fact and you cannot use a BT contract you have never seen and claim it's incompatible with an ERC competition when you absolutely don't know that to be the case.

As for Marc Watson, he made a poorly judged statement and it was completely out of line with everything else that was being said. But if I was running for President of America and claimed I wanted a "New America" as many have, that doesn't mean I am trying to disestablish the United States.

rrpc · 26-09-2013 02:30PM

molloyjh wrote: »

PRL are every bit as much a part of the ERC as the IRFU. They have been part and parcel to the agreements on when meetings take place etc. You have no idea what is or isn't being said in these meetings or who is proposing or rejecting what. Again you seem happy to swallow everything and anything that the PRL say without question and then present that as "fact" when you really have no idea if it is.

I might add here that meetings are not where the work is done, despite what IBF may think. I have been and am on a number of boards and I can tell you that meetings are called to report progress from previous meetings and direct efforts towards the next meetings.

Most of the work is done between meetings and carried out by a combination of board members and appropriately delegated staff.

So the number of meetings is indicative of nothing.

irishbucsfan · 26-09-2013 02:33PM

molloyjh wrote: »

PRL are every bit as much a part of the ERC as the IRFU. They have been part and parcel to the agreements on when meetings take place etc. You have no idea what is or isn't being said in these meetings or who is proposing or rejecting what. Again you seem happy to swallow everything and anything that the PRL say without question and then present that as "fact" when you really have no idea if it is.

I'm not swallowing what they've been saying as fact. I was accusing the ERC of it in this thread long before Quentin Smith said it. It's my opinion that the ERC are doing it and it has been echoed by statements from those involved.

It makes no sense for Premiership Rugby to have delayed the negotiations, so I'm not sure what you're basing that accusation on. The ERC and Celtic Unions have done it in order to force the clock to run down on negotiations, according to people who were there. If you want to believe an alternative to that you are welcome to.

rrpc · 26-09-2013 02:35PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As for Marc Watson, he made a poorly judged statement and it was completely out of line with everything else that was being said. But if I was running for President of America and claimed I wanted a "New America" as many have, that doesn't mean I am trying to disestablish the United States.

This is silly. The quote is clear. He also called it a successor to the Heineken cup.

And as usual when something doesn't suit your argument, you play the man. :rolleyes:

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments