Threat to Six Nations free to air viewing.

irishbucsfan

bilston wrote: »

I usually think most sports rights are fair game but I would draw the line at the 6Ns. The amount of non rugby fans watching and talking about the Six Nations in my work over the last few weeks has been crazy. That has to be worth a lot more than anything money can buy.

Yeah, it's been great. And there was absolutely no interference needed to get us to this point.

brick man

If Rep. Of Ireland's euro and world cup qualifier's are designated free to air then the 6 nations must be and I can't figure out why it has taken till now . if these games are not of national importance then I don't know what is.

RAKM

The reason the IRFU and other unions would not want 6N designated FTA is that the threat of Sky/BT making a bid is that even if they intended to sell them to RTE/ BBC they can get more money from the FTA broadcasters if the threat of pay TV is there. Also there would be the possibility of Eng/Fra not agreeing and trying to negotiate their own pay TV deals. This would decrease the value of Ireland's home games and mean less cash for IRFU. I know they agree to sell the rights in unison now but that could change.
As a Saorview/FTA viewer I would be happy if the minister declared that the Irish 6N games had to be FTA 2 hours after kick off. Even this might not please the unions.

Sanjuro

bilston wrote: »

I usually think most sports rights are fair game but I would draw the line at the 6Ns. The amount of non rugby fans watching and talking about the Six Nations in my work over the last few weeks has been crazy. That has to be worth a lot more than anything money can buy.

Agree completely. Myself and the two other rugby fans in work were suddenly he mos popular guys this week. Of course, it came crashing down by Friday, but it was nice to see some genuine interest in the sport. Selling the rights off would kill the growing interest in the game and that would be a real shame.

jm08

icdg wrote: »

On the Week in Politics White denied that a decision had been made but did say there was a "strong case". Of course in politics there are decisions and then there are Decisions - what has been informally already decided does not become Decided until a later date.

This has all come up recently because Feehan (CEO of 6Ns) was asked if he would consider Pay Per View TV for 6Ns. He would have been an idiot if he said he wouldn't!

Interesting that its the Murdock owned Sunday Times that are writing about this. A bit of a coincidence that he also owns Sky.

I think Wales games are listed by the way, and I don't they have been penalised financially for that.

total former

jm08 wrote: »

Interesting that its the Murdock owned Sunday Times that are writing about this. A bit of a coincidence that he also owns Sky.

Except Alex White confirmed he is considering it. This is called "proper journalism".

irishbucsfan

total former wrote: »

Except Alex White confirmed he is considering it. This is called "proper journalism".

Well he said there's a case for it, he wasn't really going to rule it out either. However given his background (ex RTE employee let's not forget) I'm sure he really is considering it.

jm08

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well he said there's a case for it, he wasn't really going to rule it out either. However given his background (ex RTE employee let's not forget) I'm sure he really is considering it.

There could be a fair bit of competition anyway from FTA - UTV, TG4, TV3, not just RTE.

Speaking on RTÉ television, Minister White said a report in today‘s Sunday
Times was “a little previous” but added that he was in favour of the matches being watched by as many people as possible.
“No actual decision has been made yet but I think there is a case if you look at the Six Nations, the question I have to ask is does it have a distinct cultural significance or importance for Irish people,” he said.
“Anyone can see the success including the success on television as a television event with access for so many people to be able to see this.”
Legislation allows the Communications Minister to place certain television coverage on the ‘free-to-air’ list. Certain GAA and soccer coverage is already on the list, among other designated sports coverage.

I don't know why anyone would think its in the interests of fans or the sport that it would be good to be moved to pay tv. I'd also be surprised if the IRFU went pay tv with it.

Podge_irl

There is very little chance of the rights going to pay TV and its not even remotely an imminent prospect. This is just electioneering nonsense. The option to go to pay TV is important but it's not like white is stepping in to save it. There is no immediate prospect of it going there anyway!

howiya

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/sky-sports-seal-exclusive-rights-for-three-ireland-world-cup-warm-up-matches-1.2158702

Warm up games for the WC on Sky

themont85

jm08 wrote: »

This has all come up recently because Feehan (CEO of 6Ns) was asked if he would consider Pay Per View TV for 6Ns. He would have been an idiot if he said he wouldn't!

Interesting that its the Murdock owned Sunday Times that are writing about this. A bit of a coincidence that he also owns Sky.

I think Wales games are listed by the way, and I don't they have been penalised financially for that.

Common misconception, they're not.

themont85

jm08 wrote: »

There could be a fair bit of competition anyway from FTA - UTV, TG4, TV3, not just RTE.



I don't know why anyone would think its in the interests of fans or the sport that it would be good to be moved to pay tv. I'd also be surprised if the IRFU went pay tv with it.

UTV yes and I suspect ITV are going to bid heavily for the rights for the UK. TV3 and TG4 no chance.

bilston

howiya wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/sky-sports-seal-exclusive-rights-for-three-ireland-world-cup-warm-up-matches-1.2158702

Warm up games for the WC on Sky

Which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. Few will remember the warm up games by the time we are into the meat of the WC so selling them to the highest bidder is the sensible thing to do.

I can even see a case for selling the AI's to Pay TV (which has been done by the IRFU for their UK rights including Northern Ireland), but the 6Ns is different.

By the way there is a danger that if the Irish government legislates to place the 6Ns on the A list that down the line we could face a situation where like the AIs the 6Ns is available FTA in the Republic and on a subscription basis in Northern Ireland...I'd almost like to see that happen just to read Jaco's reaction!!

icdg

Just of interest, the list as it currently stands is here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0099.html

The rather more substantial looking UK list is here:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/other-codes/listed_events.pdf

I say "looking" because the Irish list includes all competitive Republic of Ireland games on the "A" list, whereas in the UK only the World Cup and Euro finals are protected. If the Six Nations was moved to the "A" list we would in fact have no "B" list, because it is the only event on it.

total former

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/alex-white-tells-cabinet-six-nations-should-be-free-to-air-1.2160086

Time for the IRFU to dust off the old "Save Irish Rugby" campaign materials.

And, shock horror, the Sunday Times breaking the story was not just some Murdoch propaganda. Imagine that...

Quin_Dub

RAKM wrote: »

The reason the IRFU and other unions would not want 6N designated FTA is that the threat of Sky/BT making a bid is that even if they intended to sell them to RTE/ BBC they can get more money from the FTA broadcasters if the threat of pay TV is there. Also there would be the possibility of Eng/Fra not agreeing and trying to negotiate their own pay TV deals. This would decrease the value of Ireland's home games and mean less cash for IRFU. I know they agree to sell the rights in unison now but that could change.
As a Saorview/FTA viewer I would be happy if the minister declared that the Irish 6N games had to be FTA 2 hours after kick off. Even this might not please the unions.

This is the key bit - Current TV deal for 6n is worth 100M , IRFU will get 20M this year.

75% of the total fund is split 6 ways , then the rest is split between a 50% pro-rata division based on the number of clubs in each country and 50% as prize money.

If Ireland was restricted to FTA then the rest wouldn't agree to a split like that and Ireland would lose out big time.

icdg

total former wrote: »

And, shock horror, the Sunday Times breaking the story was not just some Murdoch propaganda. Imagine that...

The level of day-to-day involvement Murdoch is alleged to have with his newspapers is greatly over estimated - if you were to believe some, he personally writes every article in all of the not insubstantial number of newspapers that News Corp owns, which is some going for an 84 year old.

I am not sure this is going to happen anyway. Reports are that many Fine Gael TDs are against. And the event is listed in France too, as Thornley points out. The skeptic in me says that the ladies gaelic games (which are in no danger of going to pay TV ever - camogie has no live TV deal for anything except the All-Ireland final, which is on RTÉ) are being added to the list to give White a fall back position in the event that there is a significant backlash against adding the Six Nations.

jm08

themont85 wrote: »

Common misconception, they're not.

List A2

These events, generally seen as only important to one Home Nation, would have to be aired live in their entirety on a free-to-air channel in that nation only:
Association football:

• FA Cup final (in England)
• Scottish Cup final (in Scotland)
• FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Football Championship qualifiers (in the respective nation)

Rugby union:

• Wales Six Nations and internationals (in Wales).

jm08

icdg wrote: »

The level of day-to-day involvement Murdoch is alleged to have with his newspapers is greatly over estimated - if you were to believe some, he personally writes every article in all of the not insubstantial number of newspapers that News Corp owns, which is some going for an 84 year old.

I am not sure this is going to happen anyway. Reports are that many Fine Gael TDs are against. And the event is listed in France too, as Thornley points out. The skeptic in me says that the ladies gaelic games (which are in no danger of going to pay TV ever - camogie has no live TV deal for anything except the All-Ireland final, which is on RTÉ) are being added to the list to give White a fall back position in the event that there is a significant backlash against adding the Six Nations.

I only use Murdock (instead of News Corp) to save confusion as to who owns what.

Simon Coveney strongly supported the IRFU the last time (when Fine Gael was in opposition).

themont85

jm08 wrote: »

List A2

These events, generally seen as only important to one Home Nation, would have to be aired live in their entirety on a free-to-air channel in that nation only:
Association football:

• FA Cup final (in England)
• Scottish Cup final (in Scotland)
• FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Football Championship qualifiers (in the respective nation)

Rugby union:

• Wales Six Nations and internationals (in Wales).

It would be helpful if you included every paragraph that you C&P from wikipedia there:

BBC proposal[edit]
The BBC unveiled a proposed reordering of the list on 30 July 2009. Most notably, it would create a new category for events that would have to be aired live in their entirety on a free-to-air channel.[2]

Proposed. Did not come into being.

Might have happened if Labour got back in, certainly not once James Hunt and the Tories got back in.

What it does serve though is to show the backlash that would ensue if it happened. What makes the Six Nation difficult to move from FTA is the mix of the Home Nations into the one annual competition which is unlike anything else in UK sport. It would be the equivalent of English cricket tests moving off FTA 10 years ago in terms of outrage in Wales. But you can add in outrage in the 3 other Home Nations as well. This isn't one isolated country. There isn't that kind of mix for any other sporting event. Politicians would be screaming blue murder up and down the UK.

My honest opinion is that it won't happen because 1) the RFU do not need the money and know that this is their shop window and 2) the IRFU have shown no indication that they are willing to move off FTA and in order for it to happen you need widespread agreement. Additionally, if BT Sport came in and say doubled what the BBC were to offer then it would obviously be considered (that's aside from the significant Contra value the BBC provides) but it would really have to bowl over the Six Nations Committee and the BBC already pays market rates (40 million pounds sterling a year currently). For Pay TV I don't think value is there for the Six Nations to be paying 70 to 80 million pounds a year. It's only 5 weekends a year. It rates very well but it is a unique event. That would dwarf the AP Premiership contract and the European club competition. I don't believe the value is there to be doing that.

I do predict that ITV will make a big run at them. They've lost F1 rights, Champions League and the FA Cup in recent years. They have money to spend on sports rights and they will be showing the 2015 WC and there will be a glow after that. Hopefully the BBC retain them though, for the sport's sake.

Digifriendly

themont85 wrote: »

What it does serve though is to show the backlash that would ensue if it happened. What makes the Six Nation difficult to move from FTA is the mix of the Home Nations into the one annual competition which is unlike anything else in UK sport. It would be the equivalent of English cricket tests moving off FTA 10 years ago in terms of outrage in Wales. But you can add in outrage in the 3 other Home Nations as well. This isn't one isolated country. There isn't that kind of mix for any other sporting event. Politicians would be screaming blue murder up and down the UK.

My honest opinion is that it won't happen because 1) the RFU do not need the money and know that this is their shop window and 2) the IRFU have shown no indication that they are willing to move off FTA and in order for it to happen you need widespread agreement. Additionally, if BT Sport came in and say doubled what the BBC were to offer then it would obviously be considered (that's aside from the significant Contra value the BBC provides) but it would really have to bowl over the Six Nations Committee and the BBC already pays market rates (40 million pounds sterling a year currently). For Pay TV I don't think value is there for the Six Nations to be paying 70 to 80 million pounds a year. It's only 5 weekends a year. It rates very well but it is a unique event. That would dwarf the AP Premiership contract and the European club competition. I don't believe the value is there to be doing that.

I do predict that ITV will make a big run at them. They've lost F1 rights, Champions League and the FA Cup in recent years. They have money to spend on sports rights and they will be showing the 2015 WC and there will be a glow after that. Hopefully the BBC retain them though, for the sport's sake.

Tend to agree with you on this. BBC have served these islands well with their 6 Nations coverage and long may it continue.

howiya

Consultation process to add 6N to designated FTA event list launched today by Department

STB.

Sporting bodies would sell their own grannies if it meant making more money in the long term.

The Italians didnt protect the Rugby World Cup and it went behind a paywall, ala Sky Italia. For a soccer nation, it caused uproar.

You only have to look at what the GAA have done to their own sport in selling some of the championship games exclusively to Sky and the trainwreck that is.

Is it a sporting game of national importance ?

Should anyone be deprived of viewing it ?

Is it something that should involve bringing your kids to a pub to see ?

I'd rather Ryle and Ward anyday.

sydneybound

Good news IMO...

BBC are actually going to fight to try and keep the Six Nations (unlike The Open Championship when they didn't even bid and let go) and offer a deal thought to be worth at least £50m a year, a 25% increase on the current deal.

Some of the six nations unions are aiming for a 40% increase which would be worth £240 over 4 years, 60m per year. If the cost is pushed to £60m the BBC would consider a hybrid deal with a satellite company. Sky and BT are very interested. Gareth Davies the WRU chairman basically says it'll all kickoff in Wales if their games aren't on free to air TV as one third of the country tuned in to watch Wales V England this year and challenged the BBC to up their price.

It's hoped the new deal will be signed before the World Cup in September.

All reported in today's rugby paper.

George Hook

sydneybound wrote: »

Some of the six nations unions are aiming for a 40% increase which would be worth £240 over 4 years

Well, don't they seem easily pleased?

slowburner

The core issue is who will compensate the IRFU for lost revenues, if coverage of the Six Nations stays free to air.

You can send an online submission to the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources here:

http://www.irishrugby.ie/irfu/tv_rights_facts.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWquWhHlK4

STB.

slowburner wrote: »

The core issue is who will compensate the IRFU for lost revenues, if coverage of the Six Nations stays free to air.

You can send an online submission to the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources here:

http://www.irishrugby.ie/irfu/tv_rights_facts.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWquWhHlK4

That is not the core issue. What a load of self serving propaganda.

Who are the IRFU to demand compensation ! Laughable. They quite clearly would sell there own grannies to make more money.

The core issue is if it isnt protected, it is highly likely that they would sell it to the highest bidder. As we all know the highest bidder is normally not a PSB but the likes of Sky.

Then you have a farcical situation whereby the 6 Nations could end up behind a paywall and the numbers of viewers would be a fraction of what can reach 891,000 in Ireland. The IRFU wouldnt have to worry about grass roots level when there is no longer public interest through lack of free exposure. Its up to you and me to look after the public interest in that event and have it listed.

irishbucsfan

STB. wrote: »

The core issue is if it isnt protected, it is highly likely that they would sell it to the highest bidder. As we all know the highest bidder is normally not a PSB but the likes of Sky.

If it was "quite likely" that they would sell it to the highest bidder then why hasn't it gone to Sky in the past?

That's just not true. The reality is they would sell it to whichever broadcast partner offer Irish rugby the greatest value. There is an inherent value in broadcasting Irish rugby on FTA television and the IRFU understand the relationship between those factors far better than our TDs.

Irish rugby is thriving under the guidance of the IRFU. The government would be better placed focusing on the many things in the country which they are responsible for which are not.

sydneybound

Like was said above if it was purely about money that would have gone to sky a long time ago. The IRFU would much prefer to keep the Six Nations on free to air TV however RTE or TV3 still have to put in a decent bid.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Irish rugby is thriving under the guidance of the IRFU. The government would be better placed focusing on the many things in the country which they are responsible for which are not.

I think both World Rugby and the IRFU are doing great jobs. Very easy to keep knocking governing bodies but rugby in Ireland and worldwide is very much on the up and will continue to be so for years to come.

Very Bored

There are certain events that should be protected in terms of being free-to-air. I would list the Six Nations, the Champions League Final, the FA Cup Final and Wimbledon amongst them in the UK. I firmly believe, though I can't really see it being threatened, that the GAA should be protected as well in Ireland. I think international soccer matches should be as well, and they are in most countries, but we already know how that's gone with Sky in the UK. There are certain events which are part of the cultural fabric of nations and the maximum number of people possible should be able to watch them.

its_phil

Very Bored wrote: »

There are certain events that should be protected in terms of being free-to-air. I would list the Six Nations, the Champions League Final, the FA Cup Final and Wimbledon amongst them in the UK. I firmly believe, though I can't really see it being threatened, that the GAA should be protected as well in Ireland. I think international soccer matches should be as well, and they are in most countries, but we already know how that's gone with Sky in the UK. There are certain events which are part of the cultural fabric of nations and the maximum number of people possible should be able to watch them.

Sky don't have England internationals. ITV do

Very Bored

sydneybound wrote: »

Like was said above if it was purely about money that would have gone to sky a long time ago. The IRFU would much prefer to keep the Six Nations on free to air TV however RTE or TV3 still have to put in a decent bid.



I think both World Rugby and the IRFU are doing great jobs. Very easy to keep knocking governing bodies but rugby in Ireland and worldwide is very much on the up and will continue to be so for years to come.

Whilst I agree that the IRB and the IRFU are both doing sterling work, rugby has never been stronger in the world and within Ireland, the IRFU's hand is rather forced in terms of selling broadcast rights. The 6N and RWC are protected rights in the UK and so have to be sold to the BBC or another free-to-air broadcaster. Subsequently, as Sky wouldn't be interested in purchasing rights for Ireland only and Setanta probably being poorer than RTÉ, the IRFU has very little option to sell to anyone but RTÉ.

Very Bored

its_phil wrote: »

Sky don't have England internationals. ITV do

I thought there was a home and away arrangement for England between Sky and ITV. Maybe I'm wrong. But Scotland, Wales and the north are all exclusively on Sky I believe.

bilston

its_phil wrote: »

Sky don't have England internationals. ITV do

They have Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland games though.

STB.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If it was "quite likely" that they would sell it to the highest bidder then why hasn't it gone to Sky in the past?

That's just not true. The reality is they would sell it to whichever broadcast partner offer Irish rugby the greatest value. There is an inherent value in broadcasting Irish rugby on FTA television and the IRFU understand the relationship between those factors far better than our TDs.

Irish rugby is thriving under the guidance of the IRFU. The government would be better placed focusing on the many things in the country which they are responsible for which are not.

What is driving this is that the rights in the UK market will include offers from Pay operators for the first time from 2018. The Six Nations Board have openly admitted this.

The UK have not protected the Six Nations. It is a Category B event in the UK (delayed coverage/highlights). In the event that the likes of Sky did get the UK rights, it would follow that the Irish rights would be pursued vigorously by Sky to have exclusive control for not much more money. In which case the Six Nations would be behind a paywall in both Ireland and the UK.

This is the way Sport and TV is going. Partially protected sports end up being bought by Pay only operators. The BBC had the Open Chamsionship for 61 years. From 2017, Sky now have it. Our native GAA Championship games are now partially behind a paywall.

its_phil

STB. wrote: »

What is driving this is that the rights in the UK market will include offers from Pay operators for the first time from 2018. The Six Nations Board have openly admitted this.

The UK have not protected the Six Nations. It is a Category B event in the UK (delayed coverage/highlights). In the event that the likes of Sky did get the UK rights, it would follow that the Irish rights would be pursued vigorously by Sky to have exclusive control for not much more money. In which case the Six Nations would be behind a paywall in both Ireland and the UK.

This is the way Sport and TV is going. Partially protected sports end up being bought by Pay only operators. The BBC had the Open Chamsionship for 61 years. From 2017, Sky now have it. Our native GAA Championship games are now partially behind a paywall.

How do you plan to subsidise the boot the IRFU will get from 6N TV deal?

What about Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht and the reduced budget they will face?

Why should RTE and TV3 not face competition and pay below market rate? There is an equilibrium point for FTA and accepting less than Sky but I certainly don't think RTE and TV3 should be allowed take the piss either.

irishbucsfan

STB. wrote: »

What is driving this is that the rights in the UK market will include offers from Pay operators for the first time from 2018. The Six Nations Board have openly admitted this.

Yeah... that's not at all true. You've misunderstood that from somewhere. Sky have offered for the 6 Nations in the past. Not only have they offered for the 6 Nations in the past, they have had the Six Nations. In 2003 they had England's home games.

I wouldn't presume to know what's driving this. I certainly wouldn't want to guess. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest something like the fact the current Minister for Communications used to work as a producer for RTE and has many friends in company, all of whom would be suited perfectly by the extra budget space opened up by a reduction in the cost of the 6 Nations rights...

Very Bored

its_phil wrote: »

How do you plan to subsidise the boot the IRFU will get from 6N TV deal?

What about Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht and the reduced budget they will face?

Why should RTE and TV3 not face competition and pay below market rate? There is an equilibrium point for FTA and accepting less than Sky but I certainly don't think RTE and TV3 should be allowed take the piss either.

I agree that RTÉ and TV3 should not be allowed to take the piss. Neither should the BBC or ITV. Perhaps protected events could command a set minimum fee?

If, however, the 6N in the UK are not protected and are only category B does this point to us worrying about nothing? If its only a category B event why hasn't Sky already bought it? Does it believe the price for the event doesn't reflect the potential return?

For the uninitiated, what does paywall mean? I assume that it means that its on pay-to-view in the UK but its protected in Ireland or vice versa but I'm not sure.

STB.

its_phil wrote: »

How do you plan to subsidise the boot the IRFU will get from 6N TV deal?

What about Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht and the reduced budget they will face?

Why should RTE and TV3 not face competition and pay below market rate? There is an equilibrium point for FTA and accepting less than Sky but I certainly don't think RTE and TV3 should be allowed take the piss either.

Subsidise what ? The perceived loss of money that they might gain if not allowed to sell something that is quite clearly in the public interest to a pay only operator ?

What the IRFU dont openly champion is that they already receive more (about 4 times more) than they get from Irish TV Broadcasting rights from a combined rights agreement among the Six Nations.

1.01 million people watched Ireland vs England on RTE last year. The other games are in or 600 and 700k. Thats not just sports fans now is it. It is an example of a sports event that has become of major importance toIrish society. It must be protected as it highly likelly that the UK rights will be snapped up by Sky in 2018 when it is first offered outside the traditional FTA operators.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah... that's not at all true. You've misunderstood that from somewhere. Sky have offered for the 6 Nations in the past. Not only have they offered for the 6 Nations in the past, they have had the Six Nations. In 2003 they had England's home games.

Sky never had UK exclusive rights for the Six Nations which is what is being mooted from 2018 by the Six Nations board. The only previous Six Nations games that have been shown on pay-television were as a result of the RFU's deal with Sky in 96 which saw England briefly expelled from the championship for breaching the collective bargaining agreement in selling their home games. The BBC have had the rights since 2002.

Very Bored

STB. wrote: »

Subsidise what ? The perceived loss of money that they might gain if not allowed to sell something that is quite clearly in the public interest to a pay only operator ?

What the IRFU dont openly champion is that they already receive more (about 4 times more) than they get from Irish TV Broadcasting rights from a combined rights agreement among the Six Nations.

1.01 million people watched Ireland vs England on RTE last year. The other games are in or 600 and 700k. Thats not just sports fans now is it. It is an example of a sports event that has become of major importance toIrish society. It must be protected as it highly likelly that the UK rights will be snapped up by Sky in 2018 when it is first offered outside the traditional FTA operators.

Is it even a given that if Sky secured the rights in the UK that it wouldn't be on RTÉ in Ireland? The 6N is on France 2 and Dmax in the other countries, neither of which are pay broadcasters, and I doubt a Sky deal would change in the UK would change that. Moreover, Sky Sport (3 I think) carried matches in Italy for a few years, with no effect on other nations.

total former

STB. wrote: »

Sky never had UK exclusive rights for the Six Nations which is what is being mooted from 2018 by the Six Nations board. The only previous Six Nations games that have been shown on pay-television were as a result of the RFU's deal with Sky in 96 which saw England briefly expelled from the championship for breaching the collective bargaining agreement in selling their home games. The BBC have had the rights since 2002.

yes, we know all that, his point is that you had said this was the first time the 6N were allowing pay TV to tender for exclusive rights, which isn't correct.

STB.

Very Bored wrote: »

Is it even a given that if Sky secured the rights in the UK that it wouldn't be on RTÉ in Ireland? The 6N is on France 2 and Dmax in the other countries, neither of which are pay broadcasters, and I doubt a Sky deal would change in the UK would change that. Moreover, Sky Sport (3 I think) carried matches in Italy for a few years, with no effect on other nations.

It would be the most likely outcome. Put it this way what Sky would be able to offer would be a fraction of their outlay for the UK. Given their sizable customer base, it would go hand in hand.

RTE are losing money. TV3 had €81 million B Debt written off. They then bought back their remaining €60million debt from IBRC at a considerable discount.

Sky Italia already have the rights to the Rugby World Cup in Italy, as the italians did not protect it.

Very Bored

STB. wrote: »

It would be the most likely outcome. Put it this way what Sky would be able to offer would be a fraction of their outlay for the UK. Given their sizable customer base, it would go hand in hand.

RTE are losing money. TV3 had €81 million B Debt written off. They then bought back their remaining €60million debt from IBRC at a considerable discount.

Sky Italia already have the rights to the Rugby World Cup in Italy, as the italians did not protect it.

I wonder, in that case, why they haven't bought it before it they were able to. It has to be remembered that if Sky think they would make a loss or only break even they won't buy it, which, I suspect, is the reason they haven't ensured that they won the rights in the past if it was unprotected. The fact that the Italians haven't protected the RWC isn't exactly surprising, rugby is still very much a minority sport there.

STB.

total former wrote: »

yes, we know all that, his point is that you had said this was the first time the 6N were allowing pay TV to tender for exclusive rights, which isn't correct.

Why isnt it correct ?

The Six Nations board has quite clearly said that they would for the "first time" consider offers from pay-television operators for its next UK broadcast rights deal.

When you see the words "keep honest" in the same sentence as TV rights, only one thing is going to happen.

The IRFU have considerable more pull here than they would let on. The 5 Nations wouldnt have the same ring to it for a start.

Very Bored

STB. wrote: »

Why isnt it correct.

Because the 6N is category B not A.

STB.

Very Bored wrote: »

Because the 6N is category B not A.

And what has that got to do with inviting tenders for the first time from pay only operators ?

I suggest that anyone not fully understand the issues reads this article

Protecting the event is the only way of preventing its disappearence into the oblivion that is a paywall. It is not for a corporation to decide.

total former

STB. wrote: »

Why isnt it correct ?

The Six Nations board has quite clearly said that they would for the "first time" consider offers from pay-television operators for its next UK broadcast rights deal.

When you see the words "keep honest" in the same sentence as TV rights, only one thing is going to happen.

The IRFU have considerable more pull here than they would let on. The 5 Nations wouldnt have the same ring to it for a start.

Can you point out where in that article anyone from the 6N board says that this would be the first time they would accept offers from pay TV? (clue: they don't)

Sky were definitely bidding last time out.

I have genuinely no idea what your '5 Nations' reference means; are you implying one of the countries would leave or be thrown out??

STB.

total former wrote: »

Can you point out where in that article anyone from the 6N board says that this would be the first time they would accept offers from pay TV? (clue: they don't)

Sky were definitely bidding last time out.

I have genuinely no idea what your '5 Nations' reference means; are you implying one of the countries would leave or be thrown out??

The Six Nations board has indicated for the first time that it is to consider offers from pay-television operators for its next UK broadcast rights deal, which could result in the championship no longer being shown live on free-to-air television from 2018.

However, John Feehan, the Six Nations chief executive, told Telegraph sport on Wednesday that he was prepared to consider all options for the next deal , given how critical the revenue generated by the championship is to the Home Unions.

CLUE: When did the Six Nations board accept a deal with pay only operators previously ?



The reference to 5 Nations in the same sentence as more pull and the IRFU should be obvious, given we are discussing the potential selling of the rights and what the IRFU perceive will be their position in the vent of it being protected here and not in the UK.

total former

STB. wrote: »

The Six Nations board has indicated for the first time that it is to consider offers from pay-television operators for its next UK broadcast rights deal, which could result in the championship no longer being shown live on free-to-air television from 2018.

That's a sub-headline from a newspaper editor, not a quote from anyone. A subtle but important difference.

Think about it this way; the Six Nations (and IRFU) claim that, at the very least, the possibility of pay TV is needed to ensure that terrestrial broadcasters don't low-ball them on the rights.

Is it logical to think that this has only just occurred to them and that in 2011 they only offered the rights to terrestrial broadcasters? It's not.

total former

STB. wrote: »

CLUE: When did the Six Nations board accept a deal with pay only operators previously ?

No-one thinks/claims they accepted a deal, but they absolutely allowed them to bid.

The reference to 5 Nations in the same sentence as more pull and the IRFU should be obvious, given we are discussing the potential selling of the rights and what the IRFU perceive will be their position in the vent of it being protected here and not in the UK.

This is exactly 0% possible. The IRFU would never in a million years go against the collective. Never. You can't seriously think that.