Rugby for sale?

[blockhead]

Not content with leaching off the north financially, designing the game around how they play, and referees turning a blind eye against their foul/illegal play, now they want the NH to fund even more.

Let's cancel the Lions and Summer tours. Let's play tours against European and American tier 2 sides instead. See how long they'd last on their own.

Slightly less long than we would.

[Twist]

Not content with leaching off the north financially, designing the game around how they play, and referees turning a blind eye against their foul/illegal play, now they want the NH to fund even more.

Let's cancel the Lions and Summer tours. Let's play tours against European and American tier 2 sides instead. See how long they'd last on their own.

Slightly less long than we would.

Ergo we win!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blockhead]

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, as John Hume would say from time to time.

[Twist]

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, as John Hume would say from time to time.

Did he ever explain who cut the eye out of the last guy though?

I fancy our chances of beating NZ if thry have no eyes and James Ryan has one. Tough for the TMO to award our tries though, I’ll grant that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[limecat]

...Tough for the TMO to award our tries though, I’ll grant that much.

If the on-field decision is try, the TMO is unlikely to be able to see any clear and obvious reason not to allow it.

[blockhead]

Guardian Article:
Broadcasting rights impasse puts CVC’s £300m Six Nations deal in peril

The deal to sell a 15% stake in the Six Nations to the private equity company CVC is being held up over the home unions’ insistence that the tournament should remain live on terrestrial television, the Guardian has learned. Talks over the £300m agreement are in the final stages but the issue of broadcast rights remains a key sticking point between the two sides

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... s-cvc-deal

[Dexter]

Guardian Article:
Broadcasting rights impasse puts CVC’s £300m Six Nations deal in peril

The deal to sell a 15% stake in the Six Nations to the private equity company CVC is being held up over the home unions’ insistence that the tournament should remain live on terrestrial television, the Guardian has learned. Talks over the £300m agreement are in the final stages but the issue of broadcast rights remains a key sticking point between the two sides

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... s-cvc-deal

So, in summary: it seems CVC solely controlling the TV rights would lead to all games on subscription TV, the unions want all games on terrestrial TV - and a likely outcome is a hybrid where one game is on terrestrial TV and the other two on subscription TV. Hybrid would not be good for the sport as a whole IMO. How does it work for the SH for their international games, in the "home" countries?

[Morf]

Guardian Article:
Broadcasting rights impasse puts CVC’s £300m Six Nations deal in peril

The deal to sell a 15% stake in the Six Nations to the private equity company CVC is being held up over the home unions’ insistence that the tournament should remain live on terrestrial television, the Guardian has learned. Talks over the £300m agreement are in the final stages but the issue of broadcast rights remains a key sticking point between the two sides

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... s-cvc-deal

So, in summary: it seems CVC solely controlling the TV rights would lead to all games on subscription TV, the unions want all games on terrestrial TV - and a likely outcome is a hybrid where one game is on terrestrial TV and the other two on subscription TV. Hybrid would not be good for the sport as a whole IMO. How does it work for the SH for their international games, in the "home" countries?

They're working across 7 time zones so watching away games is already an effort to begin with. Not sure exactly how equivalent a comparison it would be.

[kUD]

How does it work for the SH for their international games, in the "home" countries?

Sky TV have had exclusive rights to all Super Rugby and NPC in New Zealand. They will sometimes show a game on their free to air subsidiary channel about 2 hours delayed with adverts a couple of times each half.
Spark (the phone company) got the rights for the World Cup on a subscription streaming platform. I'm pretty sure that sky have still got the other international games until the SAANZAR contract comes up in 2021.

So there's bugger all free to air rugby in NZ.

The biggest fear is that coverage fragments and different subscriptions are needed for different tournaments.

I ditched Sky a few years ago and pay for rugbypass.com which saves me about $70/month.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Ruckedtobits]

And so the background noise grows as the NH rugby chiefs discuss and debate whether they, with lots of carrots from CVC, can make as big a f*#k-up as they did with the Heineken Cup, by sticking the 6N behind a Pay-Wall.

The playing numbers in every major rugby nation except S Africa appears to be falling. So obviously driving the game onto cable TV is the best way to increase participation. Wha?

[JB1973]

And so the background noise grows as the NH rugby chiefs discuss and debate whether they, with lots of carrots from CVC, can make as big a f*#k-up as they did with the Heineken Cup, by sticking the 6N behind a Pay-Wall.

The playing numbers in every major rugby nation except S Africa appears to be falling. So obviously driving the game onto cable TV is the best way to increase participation. Wha?

The situation looks grim to me it's very much a case of short term gain for long term pain. The powers that be are desperate to get more money into the game but on the world wide stage rugby is still very much a fringe game with a minority following. It is never going to be football and it is never to generate huge ppv rates or huge subscriptions to things like amazon.

When the pro 14 went of all domestic tv in wales , the interest in it waned massively with the public in general. Live gates fell if anything and sponsors started to walk away.

Thankfully it is back but not to the extent it was previously. We still get all the wales home games on free to air to tv but some of the summer tours are on sky and I guarantee you the viewing figures are down massively.

Being free to air is one of the 6 nations major selling points and it is where rugby picks most of its casual viewers from , is it worth losing that to squeeze a few quid extra out of its loyal supporter base?

It's not like we are not already getting hammered at the turnstyles (£95.00 to watch wales vs Scotland!)

[The Doc]

And so the background noise grows as the NH rugby chiefs discuss and debate whether they, with lots of carrots from CVC, can make as big a f*#k-up as they did with the Heineken Cup, by sticking the 6N behind a Pay-Wall.

The playing numbers in every major rugby nation except S Africa appears to be falling. So obviously driving the game onto cable TV is the best way to increase participation. Wha?

The situation looks grim to me it's very much a case of short term gain for long term pain. The powers that be are desperate to get more money into the game but on the world wide stage rugby is still very much a fringe game with a minority following. It is never going to be football and it is never to generate huge ppv rates or huge subscriptions to things like amazon.

When the pro 14 went of all domestic tv in wales , the interest in it waned massively with the public in general. Live gates fell if anything and sponsors started to walk away.

Thankfully it is back but not to the extent it was previously. We still get all the wales home games on free to air to tv but some of the summer tours are on sky and I guarantee you the viewing figures are down massively.

Being free to air is one of the 6 nations major selling points and it is where rugby picks most of its casual viewers from , is it worth losing that to squeeze a few quid extra out of its loyal supporter base?

It's not like we are not already getting hammered at the turnstyles (£95.00 to watch wales vs Scotland!)

I get the feeling that the PPV question is a bit of a smokescreen. It is a valid debate but the longer term question is the selling of revenue streams for a capital injection.

If, as reported, the 6 nations sell 15% to CCV for a lump sum, they get the cash but from day 1 their income is reduced by 15%. They only get back to parity once the total revenues increase 15%. Their income after that increases by 85% of the total pot. This means the focus starts very quickly to change to increasing the 6 nations revenue stream - and away from "grassroots". PPV is part of this - but it won't be the only thing.

Meanwhile - the idea is that the capital injection is used to invest in the game. But the lesson learned from all other sports is that a large % of increased cash flow into a sport actually makes it's way to increased costs of running the sport (wages). While the IRFU or WRU may have intentions of investing in the game, tehy don't operate in a closed system. If teh RFU or French Rugby take the opportunity to increase salary caps or allow clubs to use capital injections to increase running costs, the other unions will have to meet market rates to keep players (at least to come extent).

So you get a double whammy - reduced revenue streams initially along with increased salary costs. Leading to increased pressure to drive up revenue one way or another.

[Dave Cahill]

The Doc speaketh the truth. The first thing that happens in every sport everywhere in the world since the invention of television when a big television contract is signed it leads to massive wage inflation as the providers of the content that is worth this enormous sum of money - the players - say 'hold on, we're the content providers, we gots to get paid'

[Dexter]

The Doc speaketh the truth. The first thing that happens in every sport everywhere in the world since the invention of television when a big television contract is signed it leads to massive wage inflation as the providers of the content that is worth this enormous sum of money - the players - say 'hold on, we're the content providers, we gots to get paid'

Agree. If posters on here know that, then how come the rugby powers-that-be are potentially stupid enough to f**k the sport over for short term gain and long term pain? There's plenty of evidence from other "minority" sports.
Seems incredible that they might do this.
Edit: also rugby in Australia might be a good reference point.

[blockhead]

CVC bought 27% of the Premiership in late 2018. Premiership rugby has a yearly revenue of about £60M at present and CVC is now entitled to 27% of that revenue.
However, if the revenue increases beyond £70M CVC start recieving a higher % of that revenue and if it reaches £90+ then CVCs share hits 50%.

We don't know the deal CVC made with the 6 nations or Pro14 for that matter but you would imagine that it was along similar lines.
The SKY deal is very much in CVCs interest, and was probably discussed with the likes of SKY and BT before they even approached the 6 Nations.
You'd imagine that a stipulation of the CVC/6Nations deal was that the TV rights would be sold to the highest bidder.

https://www.ft.com/content/e57f79b2-54b ... 2eed0038b1

https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/p ... lix-503550

[The Doc]

CVC bought 27% of the Premiership in late 2018. Premiership rugby has a yearly revenue of about £60M at present and CVC is now entitled to 27% of that revenue.
However, if the revenue increases beyond £70M CVC start recieving a higher % of that revenue and if it reaches £90+ then CVCs share hits 50%.

My scenario was quite benign in that case. Why wouldn't PR (or the 6 nations) just pay $1mm (or whatever) and hire the commercial rights guy from CVC in that case.

The problem is the valuation of income flow. For a time limited series you can discount the income and put a net present value on it given comparable / target returns and the timeframe. Not unlike securitisation of royalties, you could forgoe some income over a perdio of time in return for a lump of capital but you still keep the ownership.

But a transfer of ownership is like a perpetual bond is a different valuation model. Even if there is no change in revenue model, CVC are buying €15mm revenue in current value (or so) in perpetutity for €300mm - it seems very good value

[JB1973]

And so the background noise grows as the NH rugby chiefs discuss and debate whether they, with lots of carrots from CVC, can make as big a f*#k-up as they did with the Heineken Cup, by sticking the 6N behind a Pay-Wall.

The playing numbers in every major rugby nation except S Africa appears to be falling. So obviously driving the game onto cable TV is the best way to increase participation. Wha?

The situation looks grim to me it's very much a case of short term gain for long term pain. The powers that be are desperate to get more money into the game but on the world wide stage rugby is still very much a fringe game with a minority following. It is never going to be football and it is never to generate huge ppv rates or huge subscriptions to things like amazon.

When the pro 14 went of all domestic tv in wales , the interest in it waned massively with the public in general. Live gates fell if anything and sponsors started to walk away.

Thankfully it is back but not to the extent it was previously. We still get all the wales home games on free to air to tv but some of the summer tours are on sky and I guarantee you the viewing figures are down massively.

Being free to air is one of the 6 nations major selling points and it is where rugby picks most of its casual viewers from , is it worth losing that to squeeze a few quid extra out of its loyal supporter base?

It's not like we are not already getting hammered at the turnstyles (£95.00 to watch wales vs Scotland!)

I get the feeling that the PPV question is a bit of a smokescreen. It is a valid debate but the longer term question is the selling of revenue streams for a capital injection.

If, as reported, the 6 nations sell 15% to CCV for a lump sum, they get the cash but from day 1 their income is reduced by 15%. They only get back to parity once the total revenues increase 15%. Their income after that increases by 85% of the total pot. This means the focus starts very quickly to change to increasing the 6 nations revenue stream - and away from "grassroots". PPV is part of this - but it won't be the only thing.

Meanwhile - the idea is that the capital injection is used to invest in the game. But the lesson learned from all other sports is that a large % of increased cash flow into a sport actually makes it's way to increased costs of running the sport (wages). While the IRFU or WRU may have intentions of investing in the game, tehy don't operate in a closed system. If teh RFU or French Rugby take the opportunity to increase salary caps or allow clubs to use capital injections to increase running costs, the other unions will have to meet market rates to keep players (at least to come extent).

So you get a double whammy - reduced revenue streams initially along with increased salary costs. Leading to increased pressure to drive up revenue one way or another.

TBH I'd pay £9.99 to watch a wales game, if the money from that went into schools or local club rugby. I wouldn't pay it if it went to towards paying a test player an extra £25,000 a year. Another worry for me is that the 6 nations games and the ai games are big money spinners for local rugby clubs, often their busiest days of the year. Not all of these clubs have sky or bt , if they are forced to pay for sky just to get these games then it could cost a good few quid a month. I'm not sure if commercial premises can just have sky for the odd month here and there


Clearly in france and England the pro clubs seem to have the whip hand in terms of how revenue is split. In wales we have the PRB in charge of the professional game and the WRU running the rest of it, However all the funds are to my knowledge given to the WRU who then decide how to split the revenue (even the mooted extra cvc pro 14 cash will go directly to the unions not the regions) Being a union, the voting system is still 1 club 1 vote so that would likely see the clubs vote that the majority of extra cash is funnelled their ways (hopefully to develop facilities , coaches and clubhouses and not to pay dai the plumber £50 quid a week in his hand to turn out for the first xv) But as you rightly point out whenever any sports club gets more money at any level it seems to go to players wages and not on building a sustainable future

I don't have much truck with plaid cyrmu as a rule but good on this fella

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51698341


What is the relationship like between the irfu , provinces and junior clubs , and who decides where any extra money goes?

[Ruckedtobits]

And so the public campaign begins. Marc McSharry - FF spokesman on Sports & Tourism - and Brendan Griffin - his FG equivalent, have found one common policy, put the 6 Nations on the Goverment ' Listed Events' immediately. Why was it ever left off ? Answer, because the IRFU (Philip Brown and Tom Grace) convinced the Dail Sports & Tourism Committee to leave it out in 2014.

The crunch decision lies with the IRFU Committee. Those individuals should be concerned with the impact on the game's development rather than the Union's income and war chest. The income from 5,000 x €15,000 from this year's sale of 10 yr Tickets shouad ease the pain of less TV Rights income. Coupled with the sale of the land in Newlands and the Pro14 capital income for 26% of that shareholding to CVC, should be sufficient for anybody confident in the future of the game.

On the other hand, if that Committee of 24 or 26 august Representatives and Officers of the IRFU do not care about the future development of the game, should they be in those representative roles, or, put another way, who do they represent?

[Morf]

It's easy to say from the fan side but if you were making the decision as a rugby administrator it's difficult to turn away from significantly greater income in the short to medium term.

Puts the union on a more solid footing, allows your more optimistic grassroots initiatives to be paid for, you're less concerned with future governments (and their approach to sport), foreseen BREXIT consequences are more easily accounted for etc and so on.

You may provide many good reasons against such a deal but it could be adopted for well-meaning reasons that aren't self-serving for those making it.

[Oldschool]

It's easy to say from the fan side but if you were making the decision as a rugby administrator it's difficult to turn away from significantly greater income in the short to medium term.

Puts the union on a more solid footing, allows your more optimistic grassroots initiatives to be paid for, you're less concerned with future governments (and their approach to sport), foreseen BREXIT consequences are more easily accounted for etc and so on.

You may provide many good reasons against such a deal but it could be adopted for well-meaning reasons that aren't self-serving for those making it.

They should have taken the money and offer of a new Stadium on the IGB site.
And that's not hindsight (not mine TBF/TBH)