Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Tox56 wrote: »

I do think he's too dismissive of the Italian/Scottish side of the argument and Horgan makes better points there

I haven't watched it again, but wasn't Horgan's point something like "If there are no Italian or Scottish sides in the competition, then is it really a European tournament?"

If it is, I just ask the question, if there's no Romanian or Spanish side in the competition, then is it really a European tournament?

Tox56 wrote: »

That argument is not so much about the countries not involved as the countries that are involved. England, France, Ireland, Wales is not really a European tournament

I haven't watched again either but if I remember correctly Horgan's argument was more that if say a Scottish team isn't involved no foreign players will want to play for that team, no Scottish players will want to play for that team and it goes in a downward spiral from there with players leaving for the higher standard of competition available at other clubs (like in football with non-Champions league clubs). COS didn't seem to appreciate that side of it at all

In the end they reach the obvious conclusion that there has to be at least 1 team from each nation and I'm pretty sure they all agreed on that

Yes but they've all agreed that for some time. Premiership Rugby have been saying that since last November when they offered that as a compromise, so I don't know why the complaint was being made in the first place.

I think Horgan was discussing it well but then Lenihan stepped in and clearly was completely uneducated about the discussion, talking about reducing the number of games and all that rubbish. It's a shame, I'd like to see a proper debate between Horgan and O'Shea.

Tox56 wrote: »

I haven't watched again either but if I remember correctly Horgan's argument was more that if say a Scottish team isn't involved no foreign players will want to play for that team, no Scottish players will want to play for that team and it goes in a downward spiral from there with players leaving for the higher standard of competition available at other clubs (like in football with non-Champions league clubs). COS didn't seem to appreciate that side of it at all

Yes and COSs rebuttal was that the Scottish sides should concentrate on developing more young players. Does he really expect the SRU to put money into developing players only for them to up sticks and leave the country when they get offered contracts abroad? The English clubs have no problem with this situation because they just have to sign the players and dont have to worry about investing money in developing players. This is the real problem - if there is no money in Scottish/Welsh/Italian/Irish rugby, how do they develop the next generation of players? Without being able to develop and retain their own players, rugby in these countries will be in a lot of trouble. That is why the English clubs must be put back in their box, their short term view could have dire consequences for rugby long term.

The biggest shame about all this is rugby has a big opportunity right now because soccer is in a bit of trouble. FIFA have sold out the World Cup to the Qataris meaning they will piss off fans by changing their whole calendar and with the use of slave labour in Qatar they are getting a lot of negative press. UEFA are taking a big risk by spreading Euro 2020 across the continent and now seem to want to turn the competition into a World Cup Mark II by inviting countries from outside Europe. As complicated as the situation is in European rugby, soccer could be much worse and will damage the game. This is a huge opportunity for rugby to increase its popularity by offering itself as an alternative to the greed of soccer. Of course there will always be a certain amount of greed in any organisation which has multi million euro revenues but rugby should be trying to attract sports fans disenchanted by soccer selling out its major competition, not doing the same thing.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Yes and COSs rebuttal was that the Scottish sides should concentrate on developing more young players. Does he really expect the SRU to put money into developing players only for them to up sticks and leave the country when they get offered contracts abroad? The English clubs have no problem with this situation because they just have to sign the players and dont have to worry about investing money in developing players. This is the real problem - if there is no money in Scottish/Welsh/Italian/Irish rugby, how do they develop the next generation of players? Without being able to develop and retain their own players, rugby in these countries will be in a lot of trouble. That is why the English clubs must be put back in their box, their short term view could have dire consequences for rugby long term.

This is the hysterical viewpoint espoused by disingenuous journalists. But it completely ignores the fact that at NO point are these teams going to have no money. They will still ALL be involved in European competition and their Unions, which fund them will still ALL be involved in the ringfenced 6 Nations competition, which is what predominantly funds rugby in those countries.

The H Cup money is not the entire revenue of these teams. And it is not being entirely removed. In fact it is likely to increase depending on your point of reference. So this idea that the Scottish teams will not be able to develop new players is nonsense. They may still be at risk of moving abroad, but that is already the case and has been for years. Similarly the idea that Italian sides will not be able to develop new players is also nonsense for the same reason. That line of reasoning is completely over the top.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Not it's not. If BT have this new competition the last thing they're going to want to do is remind everyone how good the Sky days were

If this was the case, then Sky wouldn't be showing highlights from before they were broadcasting the tournament surely?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Because it's was the same competition then. A new competition won't be reminiscing about an old much loved one

They absolutely will. It's no different at all from their perspective than Sky showing the European Cup. I don't see why they'd be trying to downplay the history which would just be decreasing the value.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

But it's not the history of the "champions cup" or whatever they're calling it

Doesn't matter what it is, so long as they can get the footage and sell it to people who want to watch it.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The actual revenues of the Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Italian is largely irrelevant, their finaces relative to the English and French clubs is the concern. We may get more money under the PLR contract but if the English and French clubs get a lot more then it certainly damages the game here. And the English and French clubs will over time try to promote the new competition at the expense of the international game and any loss in value there would have a huge detrimental effect on us. But lets let rugby go down the route of free market capitalism, what could possibly go wrong?

The actual revenue is absolutely important because it determines what their revenue is relevant to those other nations.

But it is also important to look at that revenue per team which is receiving it, and that should be even. It currently is nowhere close to being even.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How on earth is it nonsense? The whole point of the TV rights is to create value, so logic dictates they should be sold in whichever way creates the most value. Unless you can think of a reason why not?

You do not have the figures of the Irish market, for one.

The fact is; Sky operate in the United Kingdom and Ireland. We are essentially the same market. There are slight differences in exactly what drives penetration of course, but Sky show the exact same things in both markets. It is incorrect to say "European Rugby important to Sky for just Ireland, England-BT". Both operate in both countries. European rugby still rates and drives subscriber penetration in the UK, it might be relatively more important in Ireland but it still is important there.

BT having European games makes the product far less valuable for Sky Sports. BT having all English games gives them a huge part of what Sky are after. When Sky Sports pay a major rights fee they do it for two reasons, something to drive subscriptions and pick up ad revenue. This is automatically reduced. The value to Irish customers is diminished, I now have to subscribe to 2 channels in order to watch all Irish provinces. Same for Scots and Welsh. English matches played in Celtic countries, lets ignore the legal bit of whatever BT signed with English clubs in the UK, even if Sky could show English club away games the value is still diminished. How much would Sky really pay for that? Do you think Sky would pay full market rates for that? People will pick and choose as what to subscribe over. You will see the dreaded churn.

Why do you think nearly every League/Competition negotiates centrally? Its quite simple collective bargaining theory. The Premier League, NFL, Six Nations ect put all of their rights up to tender with sometimes various packages set out (and all packages don't grant exclusivity over 1 team to a broadcaster). This ensures that the broadcasters pay up the maximum market value for rights. There's no information gap.

That's what exists here.

If Sky Sports came in at the next round of 6 Nations rights and went directly to the IRFU offering above market rates, the IRFU would be screwing the other Unions. For some extra money for themselves, they would be reducing everyones elses bargaining power. This is why the FTA proposal from the Govt was challenged by the IRFU. Its not just the Irish rights but also the rights in the UK. Sky will be far less interested in paying for the UK rights if the Irish rights aren't available. The other Unions including Italy and France would have to accept lower amounts from RTÉ just so Ireland's FTA law could be complied with.

When the RFU did this in 1998 that was why they were kicked out of the 6 Nations.

You, as a sports rights holder, have to have a great deal of power to overcome that (see F1 rights, the Masters). Otherwise, you have to do things such as auctions.

themont85 wrote: »

You do not have the figures of the Irish market, for one.

The fact is; Sky operate in the United Kingdom and Ireland. We are essentially the same market. There are slight differences in exactly what drives penetration of course, but Sky show the exact same things in both markets. It is incorrect to say "European Rugby important to Sky for just Ireland, England-BT". Both operate in both countries. European rugby still rates and drives subscriber penetration in the UK, it might be relatively more important in Ireland but it still is important there.

BT having European games makes the product far less valuable for Sky Sports. BT having all English games gives them a huge part of what Sky are after. When Sky Sports pay a major rights fee they do it for two reasons, something to drive subscriptions and pick up ad revenue. This is automatically reduced. The value to Irish customers is diminished, I now have to subscribe to 2 channels in order to watch all Irish provinces. Same for Scots and Welsh. English matches played in Celtic countries, lets ignore the legal bit of whatever BT signed with English clubs in the UK, even if Sky could show English club away games the value is still diminished. How much would Sky really pay for that? Do you think Sky would pay full market rates for that? People will pick and choose as what to subscribe over. You will see the dreaded churn.

Why do you think nearly every League/Competition negotiates centrally? Its quite simple collective bargaining theory. The Premier League, NFL, Six Nations ect put all of their rights up to tender with sometimes various packages set out (and all packages don't grant exclusivity over 1 team to a broadcaster). This ensures that the broadcasters pay up the maximum market value for rights. There's no information gap.

That's what exists here.

If Sky Sports came in at the next round of 6 Nations rights and went directly to the IRFU offering above market rates, the IRFU would be screwing the other Unions. For some extra money for themselves, they would be reducing everyones elses bargaining power. This is why the FTA proposal from the Govt was challenged by the IRFU. Its not just the Irish rights but also the rights in the UK. Sky will be far less interested in paying for the UK rights if the Irish rights aren't available. The other Unions including Italy and France would have to accept lower amounts from RTÉ just so Ireland's FTA law could be complied with.

When the RFU did this in 1998 that was why they were kicked out of the 6 Nations.

You, as a sports rights holder, have to have a great deal of power to overcome that (see F1 rights, the Masters). Otherwise, you have to do things such as auctions.

How are they essentially the same market? Do BT have consumer television/broadband services in Ireland?

Anyway, that's not what I said. I said WHEN the rights are worth more seperately, they should be split up. Hence we sell the French and Italian rights seperately.

themont85 wrote: »

French/Italians have different television networks. Different platforms. They are completely separate markets.

Sky are the biggest Pay TV operator in the UK and Ireland. British channels are widely available in Ireland. We are essentially the same market. There are market differences in the US too with different cable companies and different affiliates, but it is the same market.

They won't be worth more separately. Not unless Sky tomorrow decides to have Irish only channels, which given their history with Irish only content and the right broadcasters purchase it (ie cannot be one of the British FTA networks which are widely available here and impossible to block out, unlike BT), is highly unlikely.

and yes, BT are in Ireland.

BT Sports are not in Ireland though. And as far as I am aware neither are BT as a consumer connectivity provider, at least directly?

So given the fact that BT do not exist in the Irish market for sports TV rights, they are not the same market. And given BT are using these rights to sell BT Infinity, which is not available in Ireland (as far as I know), the factors at play in the market are very different.

themont85 wrote: »

Yes they do.

Yes, but not in the same guise, aren't they there through Setanta? For example, don't Setanta show the Top 14 in Ireland through BT's rights?


It's clearly a completely different market. BT are using their sports rights to sell Infinity, which is not available in Ireland. So why would they see Ireland as being worth as much as it is to them in the UK?

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Nah, bt sports 1 and 2 broadcast here as they do in te UK. Setanta sell the package I think.

Oh right, I thought they took some of the content to broadcast on Setanta as I'd heard people were saying those matches were being shown on Setanta.

So does BT Infinity/Vision now exist in Ireland? Or do they just sell BT Sports through Setanta.

themont85 wrote: »

What are you ****ting on about mate?

BT just use Setanta as a seller for now.

Just like ESPN used Sky in the UK&I, are you saying ESPN weren't in operation in the UK&I? This is the exact same with any number of channels, they would be nothing without someone to sell their channels (either through a platform or like Setanta/Sky do).

Top 14 rights are utter piss in the UK&I, a scheduling filler.

As I said, the US is one market but has a great many differences across regions with different cable companies holding sway in different areas.

Does BT Infinity exist in ROI?

It's so easy to see where the difference in the markets is.