RugbyRebels

twitchy wrote:

On the one hand, the 6N has to stay on free television. Just *has* to, non-negotiable. On the other hand, if the possibility of it being on pay TV is completely removed, I can't see BBC and ITV breaking the bank at the next renegotiation, especially since they've discovered the joys of sharing rather than competing.

If I thought I could trust CVC et al not to actually put it on pay TV, but just to threaten it at negotiations, then I'd be very much against this move.

Puja

I don't see why Pay TV cannot have access to the games, just not exclusive access, and then we can make a choice. Typically however choice in all this isn't for the consumer, the consumer can pay for TV licence, a Sky Sports subscription package and a BT sports subscription package, and more again if you want Pro 14 I think

{Mod}I've split this off to a new thread, cause I get the feeling there's a whole debate about to be had.{/Mod}

Digby wrote:I don't see why Pay TV cannot have access to the games, just not exclusive access, and then we can make a choice. Typically however choice in all this isn't for the consumer, the consumer can pay for TV licence, a Sky Sports subscription package and a BT sports subscription package, and more again if you want Pro 14 I think

I am wary of limiting the amount of rugby that the average Joe sees. Someone without Sky Sports already cannot see the majority of England's games and to start chipping away at the 5 that are on every year and are a national event would be worrying. Rugby in England survives on the 7m eyeballs that watch England vs Wales - it keeps us relevant and in the public eye. Put it behind a paywall and you'll only have existing fans watching it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't see why Pay TV cannot have access to the games, just not exclusive access, and then we can make a choice. Typically however choice in all this isn't for the consumer, the consumer can pay for TV licence, a Sky Sports subscription package and a BT sports subscription package, and more again if you want Pro 14 I think

I am wary of limiting the amount of rugby that the average Joe sees. Someone without Sky Sports already cannot see the majority of England's games and to start chipping away at the 5 that are on every year and are a national event would be worrying. Rugby in England survives on the 7m eyeballs that watch England vs Wales - it keeps us relevant and in the public eye. Put it behind a paywall and you'll only have existing fans watching it.

Puja

The average Joe(ly) only watches limited amounts of rugby as is, but I agree it needs the exposure of the 6N and RWC at minimum on free TV

I think I'll wait to see what financial offers are involved before making up my mind on this. I pay for Sky and BT anyway and I dislike the principle of the TV licence. It would not bother me if the BBC was scrapped. 'Free to air' is a daft expression anyway.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't see why Pay TV cannot have access to the games, just not exclusive access, and then we can make a choice. Typically however choice in all this isn't for the consumer, the consumer can pay for TV licence, a Sky Sports subscription package and a BT sports subscription package, and more again if you want Pro 14 I think

I am wary of limiting the amount of rugby that the average Joe sees. Someone without Sky Sports already cannot see the majority of England's games and to start chipping away at the 5 that are on every year and are a national event would be worrying. Rugby in England survives on the 7m eyeballs that watch England vs Wales - it keeps us relevant and in the public eye. Put it behind a paywall and you'll only have existing fans watching it.

Puja

I definitely agree with this. Last I heard viewing figures for the Aviva and the ERC have gone down since moving to BT Sport. I used to watch loads of Rugby but only have Sky and I'm not paying for BT as well.

To me it is obvious it has to remain on free to air. Fine, sky will pay you more money but what is the ultimate aim here? Money or a sport that as many people as possibly get to enjoy playing, watching and feeling part of? I think that final part is forgotten sometimes, when I watch a big event on the BBC, I come in to work the next day and people who I wouldn't expect are talking about it. It makes it all feel bigger. When I watch similar sports on Sky or a stream I feel like a niche obsessive.

Take cricket or the champions League, I'm just not as invested now I can't watch live games easily. I'm an addicted sports fan so still watch what I can but they are no longer events for me to clear the calendar for. I didn't bother watching the Champions League final last year because I hadn't been able to watch any of the earlier games so wasn't invested.

I'll keep watching and I'm guessing if I had kids too, I would get them watching but I wouldn't have got into it in the first place if it hadn't been on terrestrial TV.

Also what's the point of more money, sort of a daft question even for me, but what real competitive advantage will be derived? No 6N team is losing players to another country, or is not losing them in a way which this deal will change. It's basically just going to drive up the wages of the players, as we've seen in cricket and football, and that's it.

So unless you're taking a decent chunk of money out of the game there's no advantage to it. Other I suppose than once they've drive down public interest it'll be easier to bring in promotion and relegation

Are England contractually bound to a deal involving the whole 6N? If not and we go back to each country negotiating its own home fixture deals, might the Championship clubs then have a bigger pot from which to share?

In practical terms England are contractually bound even if not technically. My objection to this remains that France does their own thing, possibly with Italy, so if it's okay for them it should be okay for us, or France should be putting their TV money into a central pot too.

I would for what it's worth prefer a division of funds rather than each nation seek their own deal, the value comes from the whole and it's a better way to respect that even if it doesn't play to our advantage quite so much, at least not our short term advantage

Digby wrote:Also what's the point of more money, sort of a daft question even for me, but what real competitive advantage will be derived? No 6N team is losing players to another country, or is not losing them in a way which this deal will change. It's basically just going to drive up the wages of the players, as we've seen in cricket and football, and that's it.

So unless you're taking a decent chunk of money out of the game there's no advantage to it. Other I suppose than once they've drive down public interest it'll be easier to bring in promotion and relegation

I am not saying putting the 6N behind a paywall is a good idea, but there is far more to it that just any "competitive advantage".

What if you want to invest in the game out with the professional game? In Scotland the SRU, the grass roots clubs, charities (school of hard knocks etc) and the odd grant from various places are responsible for funding the game. Councils invest very little, cutting development officers, installing 4G pitches that are only able for football to be played on etc.

Where I live, a rugby club in the regional leagues which is way down the pyramid of rugby in Scotland (Pro >Semi Pro league > 4 national leagues > regional leagues) are having to fund coaches to go into schools and in some cases embed coaches in schools to keep the game alive. They have also recently with a bit of help started a girls rugby team. The club I am particularly referring to survive on £25/yr full memberships and £5 for kids because a lot of the members come from an area classed as deprived. They could put the prices up but then they would lose members.

The SRU, despite the over inflated wages everyone from Townsend and above get, do try and split the money between the pro game, the academies and the grass roots and any money they can and do offer is vitally important.

I personally don't want the 6N behind a paywall especially with Murrayfield now being extortionate so many can't afford to attend games. But I can certainly see the merits in how the money provided can do plenty of good.

Digby wrote:Also what's the point of more money, sort of a daft question even for me, but what real competitive advantage will be derived? No 6N team is losing players to another country, or is not losing them in a way which this deal will change. It's basically just going to drive up the wages of the players, as we've seen in cricket and football, and that's it.

So unless you're taking a decent chunk of money out of the game there's no advantage to it. Other I suppose than once they've drive down public interest it'll be easier to bring in promotion and relegation

That *is* a bit of a daft question. The Scots, Irish and Welsh fund their regions, the RFU bribes the clubs, all of us have community games to support, stadium loans to repay, youth programs and talent development (or poaching teams in Scotland), training camps and high performance sessions and equipment, hiring top drawer coaches... Having less money makes a big difference in international rugby - just ask Fiji.

Puja

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:Also what's the point of more money, sort of a daft question even for me, but what real competitive advantage will be derived? No 6N team is losing players to another country, or is not losing them in a way which this deal will change. It's basically just going to drive up the wages of the players, as we've seen in cricket and football, and that's it.

So unless you're taking a decent chunk of money out of the game there's no advantage to it. Other I suppose than once they've drive down public interest it'll be easier to bring in promotion and relegation

I am not saying putting the 6N behind a paywall is a good idea, but there is far more to it that just any "competitive advantage".

What if you want to invest in the game out with the professional game? In Scotland the SRU, the grass roots clubs, charities (school of hard knocks etc) and the odd grant from various places are responsible for funding the game. Councils invest very little, cutting development officers, installing 4G pitches that are only able for football to be played on etc.

Where I live, a rugby club in the regional leagues which is way down the pyramid of rugby in Scotland (Pro >Semi Pro league > 4 national leagues > regional leagues) are having to fund coaches to go into schools and in some cases embed coaches in schools to keep the game alive. They have also recently with a bit of help started a girls rugby team. The club I am particularly referring to survive on £25/yr full memberships and £5 for kids because a lot of the members come from an area classed as deprived. They could put the prices up but then they would lose members.

The SRU, despite the over inflated wages everyone from Townsend and above get, do try and split the money between the pro game, the academies and the grass roots and any money they can and do offer is vitally important.

I personally don't want the 6N behind a paywall especially with Murrayfield now being extortionate so many can't afford to attend games. But I can certainly see the merits in how the money provided can do plenty of good.

There isn't a lack of money in Scotland, there's more a lack of desire to invest in rugby at grassroots and indeed youth sports across the spectrum. The money generated in the economy from Scotland matches is huge, and yet only a tiny % of that comes back into rugby. And as we see in cricket what use having more money to invest in the base of the sport if putting it behind a paywall dwindles interest anyway?

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Also what's the point of more money, sort of a daft question even for me, but what real competitive advantage will be derived? No 6N team is losing players to another country, or is not losing them in a way which this deal will change. It's basically just going to drive up the wages of the players, as we've seen in cricket and football, and that's it.

So unless you're taking a decent chunk of money out of the game there's no advantage to it. Other I suppose than once they've drive down public interest it'll be easier to bring in promotion and relegation

That *is* a bit of a daft question. The Scots, Irish and Welsh fund their regions, the RFU bribes the clubs, all of us have community games to support, stadium loans to repay, youth programs and talent development (or poaching teams in Scotland), training camps and high performance sessions and equipment, hiring top drawer coaches... Having less money makes a big difference in international rugby - just ask Fiji.

Puja

But we do have money already, and its not like if we don't do this deal Fiji, Argentina, Romania, Australia and so on will push ahead of any of the 6N teams in relative money terms. So in the big picture in terms of competitive advantage it changes very little, even more so with most of that increased sum almost certainly being bound for wages

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Also what's the point of more money, sort of a daft question even for me, but what real competitive advantage will be derived? No 6N team is losing players to another country, or is not losing them in a way which this deal will change. It's basically just going to drive up the wages of the players, as we've seen in cricket and football, and that's it.

So unless you're taking a decent chunk of money out of the game there's no advantage to it. Other I suppose than once they've drive down public interest it'll be easier to bring in promotion and relegation

That *is* a bit of a daft question. The Scots, Irish and Welsh fund their regions, the RFU bribes the clubs, all of us have community games to support, stadium loans to repay, youth programs and talent development (or poaching teams in Scotland), training camps and high performance sessions and equipment, hiring top drawer coaches... Having less money makes a big difference in international rugby - just ask Fiji.

Puja

But we do have money already, and its not like if we don't do this deal Fiji, Argentina, Romania, Australia and so on will push ahead of any of the 6N teams in relative money terms. So in the big picture in terms of competitive advantage it changes very little, even more so with most of that increased sum almost certainly being bound for wages

Aren't all of the home nations posting a loss at the moment? Why do you think it would all go into wages when the community game and the regions are crying out that they're short of money? I would've thought international wages would have the least inflationary pressure, as there's no chance that players will go play for another country.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
That *is* a bit of a daft question. The Scots, Irish and Welsh fund their regions, the RFU bribes the clubs, all of us have community games to support, stadium loans to repay, youth programs and talent development (or poaching teams in Scotland), training camps and high performance sessions and equipment, hiring top drawer coaches... Having less money makes a big difference in international rugby - just ask Fiji.

Puja

But we do have money already, and its not like if we don't do this deal Fiji, Argentina, Romania, Australia and so on will push ahead of any of the 6N teams in relative money terms. So in the big picture in terms of competitive advantage it changes very little, even more so with most of that increased sum almost certainly being bound for wages

Aren't all of the home nations posting a loss at the moment? Why do you think it would all go into wages when the community game and the regions are crying out that they're short of money? I would've thought international wages would have the least inflationary pressure, as there's no chance that players will go play for another country.

Puja

Top wages have by far the most inflationary pressure, partly because it's people at the top making those decisions. I don't see any way the money goes out into the community game on even equal terms to that which is taken up by wage inflation, maybe 80/20 if we're lucky

And yes a good number are posting losses, but they could deal with that by cutting top wages already when they'd still enjoy that competitive advantage

Digby wrote:In practical terms England are contractually bound even if not technically. My objection to this remains that France does their own thing, possibly with Italy, so if it's okay for them it should be okay for us, or France should be putting their TV money into a central pot too.

I would for what it's worth prefer a division of funds rather than each nation seek their own deal, the value comes from the whole and it's a better way to respect that even if it doesn't play to our advantage quite so much, at least not our short term advantage

Erm - remember that France and Italy are nation-states - England isn't.
In terms of broadcasting, England is lumped in with Scotland, Wales, and to a degree, Ireland

You really think a new 6N commercial deal, brokered by CVC, would lead to more money "in" the game? It'll lead to CVC making more money, not money in the game!!!

They're bultures.

Digby wrote:And yes a good number are posting losses, but they could deal with that by cutting top wages already when they'd still enjoy that competitive advantage

So there's 35 players in the EPS and I believe match fees are currently £25k, so across 12 tests that's £10.5m per year. The RFU made a loss of £30.9m last year. £107.7m was invested in the community game last year.

I don't see the logic that international player wages are the issue here

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:In practical terms England are contractually bound even if not technically. My objection to this remains that France does their own thing, possibly with Italy, so if it's okay for them it should be okay for us, or France should be putting their TV money into a central pot too.

I would for what it's worth prefer a division of funds rather than each nation seek their own deal, the value comes from the whole and it's a better way to respect that even if it doesn't play to our advantage quite so much, at least not our short term advantage

Erm - remember that France and Italy are nation-states - England isn't.
In terms of broadcasting, England is lumped in with Scotland, Wales, and to a degree, Ireland

That doesn't stop them negotiating their own TV contracts, the leagues for instance were never historically linked, and as you note Ireland isn't part of the same nation anyway. I don't disagree with the idea of the sharing the loot, longer terms for the viability of the game it makes sense to me, but that a argument is undermined by France not sharing.

France are likely to say this position helps them offset they don't raise funds at a home stadium as do the home nations, but that's a different argument and one I'm not content to conflate in this context.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:And yes a good number are posting losses, but they could deal with that by cutting top wages already when they'd still enjoy that competitive advantage

So there's 35 players in the EPS and I believe match fees are currently £25k, so across 12 tests that's £10.5m per year. The RFU made a loss of £30.9m last year. £107.7m was invested in the community game last year.

I don't see the logic that international player wages are the issue here

Puja

You add money into the system and it's going to disappear into player wages, it's pretty much the only area in the game that shows real growth. And it's hardly just the EPS, the top cubs will go straight after the money so we're looking at all the players in the Premiership and not just the EPS

Digby wrote:

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:Also what's the point of more money, sort of a daft question even for me, but what real competitive advantage will be derived? No 6N team is losing players to another country, or is not losing them in a way which this deal will change. It's basically just going to drive up the wages of the players, as we've seen in cricket and football, and that's it.

So unless you're taking a decent chunk of money out of the game there's no advantage to it. Other I suppose than once they've drive down public interest it'll be easier to bring in promotion and relegation

I am not saying putting the 6N behind a paywall is a good idea, but there is far more to it that just any "competitive advantage".

What if you want to invest in the game out with the professional game? In Scotland the SRU, the grass roots clubs, charities (school of hard knocks etc) and the odd grant from various places are responsible for funding the game. Councils invest very little, cutting development officers, installing 4G pitches that are only able for football to be played on etc.

Where I live, a rugby club in the regional leagues which is way down the pyramid of rugby in Scotland (Pro >Semi Pro league > 4 national leagues > regional leagues) are having to fund coaches to go into schools and in some cases embed coaches in schools to keep the game alive. They have also recently with a bit of help started a girls rugby team. The club I am particularly referring to survive on £25/yr full memberships and £5 for kids because a lot of the members come from an area classed as deprived. They could put the prices up but then they would lose members.

The SRU, despite the over inflated wages everyone from Townsend and above get, do try and split the money between the pro game, the academies and the grass roots and any money they can and do offer is vitally important.

I personally don't want the 6N behind a paywall especially with Murrayfield now being extortionate so many can't afford to attend games. But I can certainly see the merits in how the money provided can do plenty of good.

There isn't a lack of money in Scotland, there's more a lack of desire to invest in rugby at grassroots and indeed youth sports across the spectrum. The money generated in the economy from Scotland matches is huge, and yet only a tiny % of that comes back into rugby. And as we see in cricket what use having more money to invest in the base of the sport if putting it behind a paywall dwindles interest anyway?

The SRU invest about £3million a year into grass roots. They also spend about £30million a year on staff costs, which includes about 300 people involved in rugby and 100 non rugby (stadium staff + corporate). A good chunk of money has been spent on decreasing debt too.

The SRU do an ok job investing in grass roots. They do give a split of funds across the different areas. Sometime to the detriment of pro teams. They have at times made the decision to let big names leave, or refuse to resign them because they stick reasonably rigidly to their budgets. For example, there is a decent rumour they are about to let Scott leave Edinburgh again despite being one of their best players this year. If the SRU were to get more money in their overall pot then the grass roots would see more of it. Whether that is a big or small number is another matter.

Accessibility to try the sport is a big issue. More girls are playing because they are being given coaching, school rugby has restarted because there are coaches going into the school and coaching. Fewer school teachers are bothered about rugby so the clubs have to pick up a large part of the slack.