New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

First topic message reminder :

TJ wrote:What the PRL said.  They were saying how much the RCC was worth and how much each union would get from it.  That implies they had "sold" all the games.

They haven't specifically said how much it will be worth, just that there will be more money than the ERC have negotiated because of what they've managed to negotiate and what the French are expecting to get.  They won't know for certain what it is worth until the French have sold their rights.  The LNR ccertainly wouldn't be on board with the PLR if they had sold rights to their games, and there wouldn't be the money they are alluding to if they had.

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The bit you highlighted said they want to own a sport at club level. That's not clearly stating what you're claiming. It 'could' mean that but it certain isn't clear.

And it goes counter to the other clearer statements. For example, the fact it only covers English games in any future European competition. And the fact the PRL said they have control over the rights by the RFU.

There's absolutely no doubting the intent of BT in that statement, Hammer:

‘We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we’ve bought give us an opportunity to do that,’ he said. ‘We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament.’

BT wanted to take over the tournament from SKY who at present have exclusive broadcasting rights. There is no proposal for shared BT/SKY rights, and BT make it very clear that they have no intention to share.

Sky don't have exclusive rights for the tournament, just for the British and Irish side of things.

Quite simply, BT don't have the platform to deliver exclusive rights, or the tied in businees need to want to.

look i am not sure what the problem here is but when Bt stated what they said

they meant they are looking forward to owning the rights to the RCC if it happens and that in the future hopefully more nations will get involved.

What is so hard about working that out?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

So, when the Celts & Italian joined in this new cup, they would have been able to sell their own rights?

Very generous of the PRL to guarantee the Celts & Italians a load of money for just turning up to play and then be able to make more on the side by selling their own rights to games!

The money from the BT deal was to go into a central pot. Apparently the values suggested were based on projections on what the other TV and sponsorship deals would be worth. I think the PRL expect that all the TV deal monies would go into a central pot.

Would the Celts & the Italians be able to sell the media and sponsorship rights of this new competition?

I'm not on the inside but I would assume so. I would also assume it would go into the same pot the English money does. Is this not obvious?

Yes. So it was a valid comment from Browne that it is laughable that the PRL would complain about the ERC selling the media rights to the Heineken Cup (which was approved at Board level) when they have done exactly the same without consulting anyone about it.

When the PRL announced the BT deal they specifically said the money would go into the "pot" of other TV deals. If BT had expected exclusive rights to the whole tournament there would be no pot.

niwatts wrote:When the PRL announced the BT deal they specifically said the money would go into the "pot" of other TV deals.  If BT had expected exclusive rights to the whole tournament there would be no pot.

yes they did-

This was a franglo propossal and the french would have been able to sort out there own deal as well, any other nation that wanted in could have clearly negotiated the same, and all the tv money would have gone into one pot and then split out. Which is clearly a very meritocratic soloution

Where have BT stated that they have the exclusive rights? They have stated that they would like to have & have an opportunity (because they already have the PRL rights) to have which seem reasonable. Others have read more to help their stance
Sin e the difference is that PRL sold their rights while ERC sold exclusive rights so not enabling PRL to return.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

So, when the Celts & Italian joined in this new cup, they would have been able to sell their own rights?

Very generous of the PRL to guarantee the Celts & Italians a load of money for just turning up to play and then be able to make more on the side by selling their own rights to games!

The money from the BT deal was to go into a central pot. Apparently the values suggested were based on projections on what the other TV and sponsorship deals would be worth. I think the PRL expect that all the TV deal monies would go into a central pot.

Would the Celts & the Italians be able to sell the media and sponsorship rights of this new competition?

I'm not on the inside but I would assume so. I would also assume it would go into the same pot the English money does. Is this not obvious?

Yes. So it was a valid comment from Browne that it is laughable that the PRL would complain about the ERC selling the media rights to the Heineken Cup (which was approved at Board level) when they have done exactly the same without consulting anyone about it.

Wheeler has said the Sky deal was not presented or agreed at that or any later board meeting. I've already said that and post links to the comments when you asked.

Also the PRL have sold the rights to their home games. The ERC sold the rights to PRL games even though they had given their notice.

markb wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The bit you highlighted said they want to own a sport at club level. That's not clearly stating what you're claiming. It 'could' mean that but it certain isn't clear.

And it goes counter to the other clearer statements. For example, the fact it only covers English games in any future European competition. And the fact the PRL said they have control over the rights by the RFU.

There's absolutely no doubting the intent of BT in that statement, Hammer:

‘We saw in rugby an opportunity to own a sport exclusively, certainly at club level, and the rights that we’ve bought give us an opportunity to do that,’ he said. ‘We are looking to set up, or at least help set up, a dazzling new European tournament.’

BT wanted to take over the tournament from SKY who at present have exclusive broadcasting rights. There is no proposal for shared BT/SKY rights, and BT make it very clear that they have no intention to share.

Sky don't have exclusive rights for the tournament, just for the British and Irish side of things.

Quite simply, BT don't have the platform to deliver exclusive rights, or the tied in businees need to want to.

You're right. I was talking out of my hat. The French would be negotiating their own broadcasting rights. BT exclusive rights being for the UK.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:There were several presume & believes in that article with no actual coment that he has seen the PRL/BT deal

So, when the Celts & Italian joined in this new cup, they would have been able to sell their own rights?

Very generous of the PRL to guarantee the Celts & Italians a load of money for just turning up to play and then be able to make more on the side by selling their own rights to games!

The money from the BT deal was to go into a central pot. Apparently the values suggested were based on projections on what the other TV and sponsorship deals would be worth. I think the PRL expect that all the TV deal monies would go into a central pot.

Would the Celts & the Italians be able to sell the media and sponsorship rights of this new competition?

I'm not on the inside but I would assume so. I would also assume it would go into the same pot the English money does. Is this not obvious?

Yes. So it was a valid comment from Browne that it is laughable that the PRL would complain about the ERC selling the media rights to the Heineken Cup (which was approved at Board level) when they have done exactly the same without consulting anyone about it.

Wheeler has said the Sky deal was not presented or agreed at that or any later board meeting. I've already said that and post links to the comments when you asked.

Also the PRL have sold the rights to their home games. The ERC sold the rights to PRL games even though they had given their notice.

Have you a link to conform about Wheeler (who was on the Commerical Committee of the ERC, which is chaired by the Toulouse President, and previously was chaired by McCafferty).

The ERC have sold the broadcasting rights in the UK of the ERC games which they are organising. Were they meant to somehow or other not allow Heineken Cup games to televised in England?

Look at Hammers post at 1.36pm on previous pages for Wheeler's quotes. The ERC could sell the rights of the remaining Unions to be shown in England but didnt have the PRL rights to sell

But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal. Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK). I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England. So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

looks like the game is up for PRL...they seem to be in denial

"Craig admitted that the vision both he and Premier Rugby Ltd. CEO Mark McCafferty shared for The Rugby Champions Cup now lies in tatters"

"“I don’t accept the media reports claiming that there was a statement by the five Unions and until someone can prove otherwise we will carry on regardless.”

http://thewaisaletimes.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/plug-pulled-on-man-in-bath/

LOL the Bruce bit is fictional as outlined at the bottom of the article.

broadlandboy wrote:Look at Hammers post at 1.36pm on previous pages for Wheeler's quotes. The ERC could sell the rights of the remaining Unions to be shown in England but didnt have the PRL rights to sell

Thanks for that. Missed it previously!

In the same link it also says:

"European club rugby's six participant Unions have granted the authority to sell broadcast rights to its tournaments solely to ERC," the ERC statement added.

"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision.


Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/story/169756.html#TQAORHaG4iJXZWvm.99

and Derek McGrath from ERC is quoted as saying, though not naming Wheeler:

McGrath shows no signs of exasperation; the measured mood and tone of voice barely fluctuates in the course of a 75-minute interview. But of course his heartbeat raised and alarm bells went off when it emerged that Premiership Rugby had come up with a unilateral deal with BT. Premiership Rugby had been on the ERC board that had agreed the last TV rights deal with Sky.

“We began to get whispers 48 hours before a board meeting that something might be happening (between Premiership Rugby and BT) and I made contact with the (English) RFU immediately because obviously they would need to be approving any contract in order for it to be official. They had no knowledge or approval of those developments. Then when it was announced, they rang me immediately to say again, they did not know and did not approve.

I've also read elsewhere that their attendance was minuted to being at the meeting.

Wheeler was on the ERC Commerical Committee - how could he not have known all about the Sky TV deal? The PRL seem to have gone quite about commenting about being not at it as well.

I actually don't think the PRL people talk to each other much. After all, half the representatives are actually the individual club owners. You would think the PRL would have a team for these meeting who are independent people and not actual team representatives.

IIRC I read that McCafferty stated that the BT deal took 5 weeks from starting until announcement & was the easiest he had done. Starting after notice to leave had been given to ERC

Welshmushroom wrote:But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal.  Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK).  I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England.  So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

The rights are for the footage, you can broadcast it in any country you have a platform to do so.  The broadcasters don't have to pay the various unions for showing footage in those countries that was filmed in and belonged to another.

markb wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal.  Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK).  I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England.  So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

The rights are for the footage, you can broadcast it in any country you have a platform to do so.  The broadcasters don't have to pay the various unions for showing footage in those countries that was filmed in and belonged to another.

correct

I know that Mark. But this is where the water muddies. Because BT where never broadcasting into France this doesn't affect French Clubs.

However BT's ability to broadcast into the other Unions populace does diminish the value of broadcasting rights for those Unions. Its not like you see the PRL selling their home game rights to French broadcasters even though they in theory are able too. My question would then become why they haven't? Because if the stance is "we are doing nothing wrong selling our home game rights to UK broadcasters, why wouldn't this also apply to French broadcasters (who I am sure would jump at the chance to secure all the French team away matches in England)?

They haven't done that purely because that would upset the apple cart with the French. So clearly they know the score and why in fact they have upset the home unions.

broadlandboy wrote:IIRC I read that McCafferty stated that the BT deal took 5 weeks from starting until announcement & was the easiest he had done. Starting after notice to leave had been given to ERC

Was there a PRL Board Meeting to approve the BT deal? (you may have seen a news item I posted - don't ask me to find it now - where a majority of the PRL Club Owners were unhappy with the BT deal and and Quintin Smith was defending McCafferty.

TJ wrote:

markb wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal.  Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK).  I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England.  So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

The rights are for the footage, you can broadcast it in any country you have a platform to do so.  The broadcasters don't have to pay the various unions for showing footage in those countries that was filmed in and belonged to another.

correct

Yes but your missing something quite important in this statement. The TV coverage in England, Wales, N.Ireland & Scotland is unified under the UK. There are no other countries in the world where this is the case in broadcasting terms. Therefore the UK represents a unique model which is why you can appreciate why these deals have been unified previously under ERC. Its because they cant split hairs in terms of broadcasting rights in the UK. Therefore the PRL are devaluing the other Unions ability to sell their own broadcasting rights.

If the participating teams all had their own broadcasting regions this wouldn't even be an issue but given only France & Italy have their own networks it clearly is. Additionally its worth noting that the PRL haven't sold their home game rights in other countries such as France. The only reason for this logic would be if they actually fear the LNR objecting to this (which naturally they would).

You mean the news item from last September (as in 14 months ago)? The one with no specifics?

Welshmushroom, BT don't broadcast in France so why would they talk about those rights? Those unions don't have any broadcast rights for the English games.

Welshmushroom wrote:LOL the Bruce bit is fictional as outlined at the bottom of the article.

well done! was hoping the first few comments would be from people who hadnt read to the bottom

   

Welshmushroom wrote:Yes but your missing something quite important in this statement.  The TV coverage in England, Wales, N.Ireland & Scotland is unified under the UK.  There are no other countries in the world where this is the case in broadcasting terms.  Therefore the UK represents a unique model which is why you can appreciate why these deals have been unified previously under ERC.  Its because they cant split hairs in terms of broadcasting rights in the UK.  Therefore the PRL are devaluing the other Unions ability to sell their own broadcasting rights.  

If the participating teams all had their own broadcasting regions this wouldn't even be an issue but given only France & Italy have their own networks it clearly is.  Additionally its worth noting that the PRL haven't sold their home game rights in other countries such as France.  The only reason for this logic would be if they actually fear the LNR objecting to this (which naturally they would).

I don't really understand your point. The situation of the Uk has no impact. The RFU hold all the rights to broadcast all games played in England. That includes broadcasting them in UK, Ireland, France, New Zealand, Tonga, everywhere. The WRU have no control or say on the broadcasting of English games in Wales or on BBCW. The unions have defined boundaries and control the rights to games played in these boundaries.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear Hammer.  What I meant is why are the PRL only signing the one deal with BT at this current time.  

BT would naturally only be interested in the UK rights.

I'd imagine there would be half a dozen French broadcasters who are interested in the rights for the games that feature French sides but are played in the UK.  So why not go ahead and sign another broadcasting deal with a French broadcaster to maximise your income from your home game which would make commercial sense.

The reason why they haven't done this is not because they cant do this, they just don't want to do this yet as they don't want to upset the French clubs by signing a commercial deal broadcasting rugby into their territory.  But that indicates that they know they are in fact impacting the other Unions or they would be exploring this avenue and have closed similar deals with other networks.

More likely because it doesn't make as much money and would be better as a reciprocal deal with whoever picks up the French games (if any in the RCC).

Also the reason the BT one went head was because it was tied to the League deal which has already started.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Yes but your missing something quite important in this statement.  The TV coverage in England, Wales, N.Ireland & Scotland is unified under the UK.  There are no other countries in the world where this is the case in broadcasting terms.  Therefore the UK represents a unique model which is why you can appreciate why these deals have been unified previously under ERC.  Its because they cant split hairs in terms of broadcasting rights in the UK.  Therefore the PRL are devaluing the other Unions ability to sell their own broadcasting rights.  

If the participating teams all had their own broadcasting regions this wouldn't even be an issue but given only France & Italy have their own networks it clearly is.  Additionally its worth noting that the PRL haven't sold their home game rights in other countries such as France.  The only reason for this logic would be if they actually fear the LNR objecting to this (which naturally they would).

I don't really understand your point. The situation of the Uk has no impact. The RFU hold all the rights to broadcast all games played in England. That includes broadcasting them in UK, Ireland, France, New Zealand, Tonga, everywhere. The WRU have no control or say on the broadcasting of English games in Wales or on BBCW. The unions have defined boundaries and control the rights to games played in these boundaries.

Of course it has a impact on commercial broadcasting deals in the UK because you have to sell them as a package which is why the ERC always negotiated these deals on a unilateral basis with UK broadcasters. I'm not implying that the PRL are doing anything wrong from their perspective (in terms of selling television rights) but what I am saying is that they may have inadvertently affected the others Unions to sell their home games by selling them alone. Because the UK is different in terms of broadcasting compared to other countries, it is why it becomes such a grey area.

My simple point here is if this is such a straight forward process, why haven't the PRL approached French networks to sell home games featuring French sides yet?

You don't need to sell them together. The money for the English games goes in the pot. The money for the other games goes into the pot. If that's bigger than what Sky gave for them all then what's the problem? It's all one pot so the PRL are just as effected as the others.

HammerofThunor wrote:More likely because it doesn't make as much money and would be better as a reciprocal deal with whoever picks up the French games (if any in the RCC).

Also the reason the BT one went head was because it was tied to the League deal which has already started.

I've no doubt that was the case. However if McCafferty was smart he would have signed a French network deal as well to make certain this wasn't just an isolated television right deal, that everyone else is focusing on. Would it have been that difficult for him to close the Aviva deal without the European attachment? Who knows.

weslhmushroom how could he have signed a french network deal?

[quote="markb"]

Welshmushroom wrote:But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal.  Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK).  I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England.  So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

The rights are for the footage, you can broadcast it in any country you have a platform to do so.  The broadcasters don't have to pay the various unions for showing footage in those countries that was filmed in and belonged to another.[[/b]/quote]

Not true. For instance, I (in Republic of Ireland), can't watch games on BBC Player and anyone in the UK outside of NI, can't watch games on RTE Player.

Both have a platform, but they block people outside their jurisdiction

HammerofThunor wrote:You don't need to sell them together. The money for the English games goes in the pot. The money for the other games goes into the pot. If that's bigger than what Sky gave for them all then what's the problem? It's all one pot so the PRL are just as effected as the others.

Didn't someone take Uefa/Fifa to some European Court about the collective sale of TV rights to the Champions League. As far as I remember the courts ruled in favour of Uefa having the rights sell all the rights collectively (as in they sell to Sky, German Broadcaster, etc).

HammerofThunor wrote:You don't need to sell them together. The money for the English games goes in the pot. The money for the other games goes into the pot. If that's bigger than what Sky gave for them all then what's the problem? It's all one pot so the PRL are just as effected as the others.

Actually when it comes to negotiations for the TV rights it would have been easier and probably worth more money by actually not splitting these out. If you have say 20 home games they could have sold each home game at the same face value (without population coming into account or geographical area). Broadcasters take population into account. It stands to reason that the other Unions wont be getting anywhere near those offers from BT as a result so will be putting in less money into the pot than they could have. Had they sold them together though this wouldn't be how these matches are assessed and the other Unions could have driven their home TV revenue money up on the back of the England deal.

BT where always going to put more money in than SKY to secure the package but by splitting the Unions trading powers up McCafferty wont have maximised the ability for them to have paid more than they will end up paying for it.

I think the crux of the matter is McCafftery was annoyed that the BT deal wasn't being considered by ERC and by signing with SKY was impacting their income (which it was). That said I would have still thought he would have realized the above, secured all the teams for a new tournament, then conclude all the broadcast deals as one unified body with BT and other broadcasters and he probably would have made a hell of a lot more money than they will now for the new European tournament. I do question at this stage this man's ability to run any tournament as he clearly lacks business acumen.

mystiroakey wrote:weslhmushroom how could he have signed a french network deal?

Easy - because he controls the rights to sell any coverage into any country (including France) for games played in England.

Could it be that BT realised the cosy relationship between ERC/SKY/RABO that they didnt stand a chance so went with PRL, they also have the rights for Top14 in this country so have an in with the LNR.

How would that have helped the situation?

Sin é wrote:

markb wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal.  Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK).  I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England.  So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

The rights are for the footage, you can broadcast it in any country you have a platform to do so.  The broadcasters don't have to pay the various unions for showing footage in those countries that was filmed in and belonged to another.[[/b]/quote]

Not true. For instance, I (in Republic of Ireland), can't watch games on BBC Player and anyone in the UK outside of NI, can't watch games on RTE Player.

Both have a platform, but they block people outside their jurisdiction

Surely that's because iplayer isn't a platform in ROI though, you can't access anything on it there because the BBC isn't a ROI licensed broadcaster, it limits computer access to the content on it by ISP address accordingly.

It's easy to get around these things though... a friend tells me.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:You don't need to sell them together. The money for the English games goes in the pot. The money for the other games goes into the pot. If that's bigger than what Sky gave for them all then what's the problem? It's all one pot so the PRL are just as effected as the others.

Didn't someone take Uefa/Fifa to some European Court about the collective sale of TV rights to the Champions League. As far as I remember the courts ruled in favour of Uefa having the rights sell all the rights collectively (as in they sell to Sky, German Broadcaster, etc).

Doesn't matter. The IRB give the TV rights to the unions that cover the regions that the games are played in. The RFU hold the rights to any new competitions played on English soil.

LOL notch - that's funny  

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:You don't need to sell them together. The money for the English games goes in the pot. The money for the other games goes into the pot. If that's bigger than what Sky gave for them all then what's the problem? It's all one pot so the PRL are just as effected as the others.

Didn't someone take Uefa/Fifa to some European Court about the collective sale of TV rights to the Champions League. As far as I remember the courts ruled in favour of Uefa having the rights sell all the rights collectively (as in they sell to Sky, German Broadcaster, etc).

Doesn't matter. The IRB give the TV rights to the unions that cover the regions that the games are played in. The RFU hold the rights to any new competitions played on English soil.

Actually that's not true - the RFU don't hold these rights anymore which is why we are in this mess. The PRL holds the rights for all club based tv rights in England. The only thing the RFU still have under their remit is International games.

That's not a certainty. It's certainly what the PRL believed. The RFU have come out and said they believe the rights revert to them. The PRL haven't disagreed with this since they said it.

This is just a press release but this certainly reads like the PRL would control them.

"As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup."

http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/november/news%20articles/rfuandprlsignneweightyearagreement

Maybe I'm wrong, but is it not the case that all the broadcasters buy a specific set of matches (the ones from their territory) and then sell/buy/exchange the rights amongst each other to show them all?

How is the showing of matches orchestrated outside the 6N otherwise, does the ERC have to sort a contract for every broadcaster worldwide that wants to show a match?

Looking at the fixture list on the ERC website each match has a specific broadcaster next to it, but they're not only going to be shown in that relevant country.

http://www.ercrugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures_heineken_cup.php?includeref=21924&season=2013-2014&round=4

niwatts wrote:

Sin é wrote:

markb wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal.  Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK).  I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England.  So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

The rights are for the footage, you can broadcast it in any country you have a platform to do so.  The broadcasters don't have to pay the various unions for showing footage in those countries that was filmed in and belonged to another.[[/b]/quote]

Not true. For instance, I (in Republic of Ireland), can't watch games on BBC Player and anyone in the UK outside of NI, can't watch games on RTE Player.

Both have a platform, but they block people outside their jurisdiction

Surely that's because iplayer isn't a platform in ROI though, you can't access anything on it there because the BBC isn't a ROI licensed broadcaster, it limits computer access to the content on it by ISP address accordingly.

We can get some stuff on BBC player, just not football or stuff the Licence holder would hope to sell to RTE.

So it's because they don't have the rights to broadcast in those regions? I forget where this started. What was the point again?

HammerofThunor wrote:That's not a certainty. It's certainly what the PRL believed. The RFU have come out and said they believe the rights revert to them. The PRL haven't disagreed with this since they said it.

This is just a press release but this certainly reads like the PRL would control them.

"As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup."

http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/november/news%20articles/rfuandprlsignneweightyearagreement

There seems to be a lot of "believing" going on. Either way clearly BT have a signed contract at this stage. So unless the RFU can actually prove the PRL don't have the rights to sell without their approval, I'm assuming McCafferty has done his homework. Because legally speaking he would be in big trouble if he has signed a deal that he is not authorized to sign. BT could sue and McCafftery could be have jeopardized his organisation by doing so.

Sin é wrote:

niwatts wrote:

Sin é wrote:

markb wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:But haven't the PRL done the same thing with the BT deal.  Yes its only for the game played in England but BT can stream those games into N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales (as part of the UK).  I'm assuming the deal doesn't incorporate a clause stating these games can only be streamed in England.  So essentially the PRL have sold broadcasting rights that actually belong to the other nations.

The rights are for the footage, you can broadcast it in any country you have a platform to do so.  The broadcasters don't have to pay the various unions for showing footage in those countries that was filmed in and belonged to another.[[/b]/quote]

Not true. For instance, I (in Republic of Ireland), can't watch games on BBC Player and anyone in the UK outside of NI, can't watch games on RTE Player.

Both have a platform, but they block people outside their jurisdiction

Surely that's because iplayer isn't a platform in ROI though, you can't access anything on it there because the BBC isn't a ROI licensed broadcaster, it limits computer access to the content on it by ISP address accordingly.

We can get some stuff on BBC player, just not football or stuff the Licence holder would hope to sell to RTE.

That's interesting, so would you say you can access most stuff, because I can't get even pretty basic radio or TV programmes through iplayer when I'm abroad unless I use a VPN

Welshmushroom wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:That's not a certainty. It's certainly what the PRL believed. The RFU have come out and said they believe the rights revert to them. The PRL haven't disagreed with this since they said it.

This is just a press release but this certainly reads like the PRL would control them.

"As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup."

http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/november/news%20articles/rfuandprlsignneweightyearagreement

There seems to be a lot of "believing" going on.  Either way clearly BT have a signed contract at this stage.  So unless the RFU can actually prove the PRL don't have the rights to sell without their approval, I'm assuming McCafferty has done his homework.  Because legally speaking he would be in big trouble if he has signed a deal that he is not authorized to sign.  BT could sue and McCafftery could be have jeopardized his organisation by doing so.

It wouldn't matter if the RFU approved it. If they didn't the PRL just wouldn't able to play in Europe.

HammerofThunor wrote:That's not a certainty. It's certainly what the PRL believed. The RFU have come out and said they believe the rights revert to them. The PRL haven't disagreed with this since they said it.

This is just a press release but this certainly reads like the PRL would control them.

"As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup."

http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/november/news%20articles/rfuandprlsignneweightyearagreement

So all they had the right to do was give directions to the ERC, not actually sell them! Talking about being given an inch and taking a mile  

That's with the ERC regarding the HEC and CC, which they're not involved with any more. Keep up