Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: Neils on June 08, 2023, 10:01:09 AM
-
EXCLUSIVE: Premiership Rugby faces MORE issues as BT Sport demands a multi-million pound rebate after it was confirmed that the competition will shrink to just 10 teams next season after London Irish's suspension
London Irish were suspended from the Gallagher Premiership on Tuesday
It means that the competition will shrink to just 10 teams from next season
Broadcasters BT Sports are demanding a multi-million pound rebate
By Matt Hughes For Mailonline
Published: 17:01, 7 June 2023 | Updated: 20:21, 7 June 2023
Premiership Rugby clubs are facing further financial problems with their main broadcast partner BT Sport demanding a multi-million pound rebate following confirmation that the competition will shrink to 10 teams next season.
Mail Sport has learned that preliminary discussions over BT's compensation demands began after Wasps and Worcester were kicked out of the Gallagher Premiership earlier in the season and negotiations are now expected to intensify after London Irish's demise was confirmed on Tuesday.
BT have one season remaining on a three-year deal worth ?110million with Premiership Rugby, but have lost almost one-quarter of the clubs who were due to compete, which they are arguing has significantly reduced the value of the TV contract.
The broadcaster's frustration is compounded by the fact that they will be rebranded as TNT Sports this summer after being bought by Warner Brothers Discovery, so are conscious about having compelling products to attract and retain customers.
Premiership Rugby are sympathetic to BT's position, but will fight hard to limit the size of the rebate, as many of their remaining 10 clubs are beset by financial problems.
London Irish were suspended on Tuesday after the club failed to pay all their staff for May
London Irish were suspended on Tuesday after the club failed to pay all their staff for May
Next season's Gallagher Premiership will now only have 10 teams following the withdrawal
Next season's Gallagher Premiership will now only have 10 teams following the withdrawal
BT Sport are demanding a multi-million pound rebate and their frustration is compounded as they look to keep customers at a time when they will be re-branded as TNT Sports this summer
BT Sport are demanding a multi-million pound rebate and their frustration is compounded as they look to keep customers at a time when they will be re-branded as TNT Sports this summer
Covid-19 loans from government have yet to be repaid, while the loss of three clubs will lead to a significant reduction in their gate receipts next season.
One potential compromise which has been mentioned in the talks would be for Premiership Rugby to offer TNT Sports a discount on the next three-year rights cycle beginning in 2024, negotiations over which are due to begin shortly.
Despite Premiership Rugby's best efforts to hold a competitive tender process it is understood there has so far been little interest from elsewhere.
Sky Sports have just spent over ?1billion securing the next five years of EFL live matches from 2024, and their immediate priorities are retaining the majority of live Premier League rights after 2025 and securing rugby league's Super League from next season in a cut-price deal.
-
What a surprise, if I was BT Sport I would be doing the same, this is a vast amount of booked airtime for next, and this past, seasons that is now empty and they need to find something else to fill it.
I've seen comments from a Tiggers fan saying they will still be able to show as many matches as they didn't show them all anyway, completely missing the fact in a 13 team league there are 26 playing weekends, whilst in a 10 team league there are only 18. Both then have the additional 2 for semi's and Final.
So with 3 live matches per weekend and approx 4hrs of live broadcast per match plus a few extra hours of highlights and Rugby tonight, they could be losing around 16hrs of broadcasting per weekend.
Based on 16hrs per weekend their total (excluding finals) is 416hrs with 13 teams, 288hrs with 10 teams.
I'd be looking for a big rebate.
This is what the Prem 10 seem to forget, the broadcast money won't stay the same when the number of hours and weekends greatly reduces.
-
Not to mention Wasps and Irish had high TV figures as the fanbase is more spread. Reduced fans with skin in the game. I am not watching any English rugby, many will watch less.
-
Not to mention Wasps and Irish had high TV figures as the fanbase is more spread. Reduced fans with skin in the game. I am not watching any English rugby, many will watch less.
Plus Wasps had one of the biggest travelling fanbase due, in part, to our spread across the country. We were often told in Europe that we were their biggest visitors from England. All lost now.
-
You reap what you sow.
-
But but but, fewer teams is better! Don't they understand? Are they stupid?
Just wait for it to be an eight-team league halfway through next season, they'll be falling over each other in an attempt to secure the rights for more money.
-
As much as 8 you reckon??
-
One potential compromise which has been mentioned in the talks would be for Premiership Rugby to offer TNT Sports a discount on the next three-year rights cycle beginning in 2024, negotiations over which are due to begin shortly.
At a time when rugby needs more than ever to try to capture the imagination of children and their parents as well as sport loving adults they?re going to lock it behind a paywall, again, in pursuit of a short term fix.
If I?m going to pay to watch rugby next season it won?t be the premier league.
-
Not to mention Wasps and Irish had high TV figures as the fanbase is more spread. Reduced fans with skin in the game. I am not watching any English rugby, many will watch less.
Plus Wasps had one of the biggest travelling fanbase due, in part, to our spread across the country. We were often told in Europe that we were their biggest visitors from England. All lost now.
Maybe we were just the noisiest and drank the most wine?
-
Who do BT Sport pay the money to, the RFU or PRL? I reckon they could be asking for as much as 30m rebate. In effect, next year for free. I was wondering whose budget this will come off? And likely that could seriously impact all the PRL clubs.
-
Not to mention Wasps and Irish had high TV figures as the fanbase is more spread. Reduced fans with skin in the game. I am not watching any English rugby, many will watch less.
Plus Wasps had one of the biggest travelling fanbase due, in part, to our spread across the country. We were often told in Europe that we were their biggest visitors from England. All lost now.
Maybe we were just the noisiest and drank the most wine?
That might be it
-
At this rate, there will be more teams in the 6N than the Premiership.
Nevertheless despite the less-is-more belief of the PRL, RFU and the Chief Wanker (Baxter), I?m cancelling my BT Sport subscription as soon as the contract is up. As that will be in August, after the rebranding, you could say that I?ll be detonating TNT.
-
But but but, fewer teams is better! Don't they understand? Are they stupid?
Just wait for it to be an eight-team league halfway through next season, they'll be falling over each other in an attempt to secure the rights for more money.
Looks like this was written tongue in cheek, but let's also remember that fewer teams being better is being taken out of context. A 10-team Premiership will only work with a strong second division with promotion/relegation is what is being talked about in conjunction with a smaller Prem.
-
Have any players commented on the less teams stuff?
If there's to be 10 teams instead of 13, then that's 18 league games per season rather than 24.
A quarter less games, a quarter less salary ???
-
Have any players commented on the less teams stuff?
If there's to be 10 teams instead of 13, then that's 18 league games per season rather than 24.
A quarter less games, a quarter less salary ???
Probably still to feed down to that level.
-
They never took the loyalty, the affection or the love of the fans into account when evaluating the outcome of their 10-team target. They either ignored our reaction or (blindly) didn't think there would be any reaction. They just never regarded the fans at all. They never imagined that at least 90% would be lost to the Premiership, or worse. They didn't account for loyalty or human nature.
-
They didn't account for loyalty or human nature.
The classic problem with British management since the 1950s. I call it the 'accountant syndrome' (not wishing to cast all bean counters in this light, but ...). They collectively destroyed most of British industry.
-
They didn't account for loyalty or human nature.
The classic problem with British management since the 1950s. I call it the 'accountant syndrome' (not wishing to cast all bean counters in this light, but ...). They collectively destroyed most of British industry.
And are continuing to do so.
-
Erm .... not all of them!! Many are quite the reverse, tho' I agree some aren't.
-
Have any players commented on the less teams stuff?
If there's to be 10 teams instead of 13, then that's 18 league games per season rather than 24.
A quarter less games, a quarter less salary ???
Or, a quarter fewer games, enabling smaller squad sizes and similar salaries...
- Players get paid similar wages to now but play fewer games
- Clubs reduce their overall Wage bill by reducing squad size
- Reduced cap but increased number of teams across two divisions still means plenty of employment opportunities for players
-
Have any players commented on the less teams stuff?
If there's to be 10 teams instead of 13, then that's 18 league games per season rather than 24.
A quarter less games, a quarter less salary ???
Or, a quarter fewer games, enabling smaller squad sizes and similar salaries...
- Players get paid similar wages to now but play fewer games
- Clubs reduce their overall Wage bill by reducing squad size
- Reduced cap but increased number of teams across two divisions still means plenty of employment opportunities for players
Personally I think the 2 division approach is dead in the water already. If they wanted to do it, they should have started plans and implementation when Warriors went under, nevermind us. Two 10 team divisions with Wasps, Warriors, Irish, Ealing is a different proposition to one with Ealing, Nottingham, Doncaster etc. That chance has passed as Warriors and Wasps are in no position to do anything now and the gap between the 'top 10, and the rest is too big to bridge. All you would get is the same couple of teams being promoted and relegated for years.
-
Personally I think the 2 division approach is dead in the water already. If they wanted to do it, they should have started plans and implementation when Warriors went under, nevermind us. Two 10 team divisions with Wasps, Warriors, Irish, Ealing is a different proposition to one with Ealing, Nottingham, Doncaster etc. That chance has passed as Warriors and Wasps are in no position to do anything now and the gap between the 'top 10, and the rest is too big to bridge. All you would get is the same couple of teams being promoted and relegated for years.
What do you think will happen if/when other teams start to fold in a ring-fenced 10 team league?
I think there's probably not much between the bottom 5 of the Prem and Top 5 of the Championship - especially if you were to factor in some form of return for Wasps/Irish/Warriors (unlikely to be all 3). Certainly for the first few years I think you'd see the same suspects bouncing back/forth between the two divisions, but suspect that changes in time. With reduced barriers to entry from current Champ > Prem, I think you could see teams build to push for promotion - i.e. do away with minimum 10k seater stadia for promotion and that makes promotion tremendously costly for teams and ends up in a situation where they're either forced to spend and develop to have a stadium other the theshold, but not filled or have to rent a stadium and do away with a significant portion of their income.
-
Personally I think the 2 division approach is dead in the water already. If they wanted to do it, they should have started plans and implementation when Warriors went under, nevermind us. Two 10 team divisions with Wasps, Warriors, Irish, Ealing is a different proposition to one with Ealing, Nottingham, Doncaster etc. That chance has passed as Warriors and Wasps are in no position to do anything now and the gap between the 'top 10, and the rest is too big to bridge. All you would get is the same couple of teams being promoted and relegated for years.
What do you think will happen if/when other teams start to fold in a ring-fenced 10 team league?
I think there's probably not much between the bottom 5 of the Prem and Top 5 of the Championship - especially if you were to factor in some form of return for Wasps/Irish/Warriors (unlikely to be all 3). Certainly for the first few years I think you'd see the same suspects bouncing back/forth between the two divisions, but suspect that changes in time. With reduced barriers to entry from current Champ > Prem, I think you could see teams build to push for promotion - i.e. do away with minimum 10k seater stadia for promotion and that makes promotion tremendously costly for teams and ends up in a situation where they're either forced to spend and develop to have a stadium other the theshold, but not filled or have to rent a stadium and do away with a significant portion of their income.
I wasn't thinking ringfenced, I was thinking that it's too little too late to implement. I think Irish are the only ones with a modicum of a chance of taking part in a set up with 2 leagues, and the remaining championship clubs aren't strong enough without a strongish Wasps / Worcester /Irish competing. You need more strong teams in the second tier than there are promotion places so there is always a core of higher standard teams who would raise the overall standard. I don't think rugby has the time for 10 plus years of seeing the same clubs yo-yoing, so you need to force the improvement and losing 3 clubs like we have seen makes that so much harder. I think there is a big gap between Exeter, Bath, Bristol, Gloucester and Newcastle and Jersey, Ealing, Coventry, Bedford and Cornish Pirates. I can't see many of the last 5 taking many points off the first 5.
In theory I think the 2 league set up would have been a good idea if they had started it 2 years ago when you could have had 3 'strong' premiership teams in there, particularly if there were only 1 or maybe 2 promotion spots. That would have provided some strength in depth in the second tier and helped develop the other clubs, but it's too late now. One solution may be to in the first season have 5 up / 5 down with the Premiership and 5 down 2 up from the tier below (to get 10 in the championship with a mix of teams), then revert to 1 up one down both to the Premiership and the tier below. At least that would give the current championship sides 5 years to compete, which may be enough for Jersey and Ealing at least. That requires sufficient funding for the tier 2 division so that the 5 Premiership sides down see it as oblivion though, so it's a non-starter, but I think it would work. That first season would be very exciting too!
-
They didn't account for loyalty or human nature.
The classic problem with British management since the 1950s. I call it the 'accountant syndrome' (not wishing to cast all bean counters in this light, but ...). They collectively destroyed most of British industry.
And are continuing to do so.
With an annual output of ?183 billion, the UK is the ninth largest manufacturing nation in the world.
-
They didn't account for loyalty or human nature.
The classic problem with British management since the 1950s. I call it the 'accountant syndrome' (not wishing to cast all bean counters in this light, but ...). They collectively destroyed most of British industry.
And are continuing to do so.
With an annual output of ?183 billion, the UK is the ninth largest manufacturing nation in the world.
I don't know what that relatively means🤯🤯 Is it good or bad???
-
In the late 1960s, UK Manufacturing Output was over 40% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product).
By the early 1900s that was down to around 15%.
It is now close to half of that.
Why is that important?
1. The less you make, the more you import.
2. You have less security of supply in times of shortage and/or war.
3. In the labour market, some workers simply do not have the ability to be upskilled to the service sector, and need the jobs that manufacturing would give, and with a reduction in manufacturing you create a pool of unwanted labour, which is persistently unemployed and requiring social welfare support. You cannot do what countless politicians try to imply is possible, and force all young people through an education system predicated on high levels of the '3 Rs'. It is a nonsense to suggest that ability to pass examinations is not represented by a normal distribution curve. In effect, the loss of manufacturing has disenfranchised a complete section of society. Struggle to read? Can't get a job, can't get a driving licence, and so on. So, far too many of the disenfranchised, who have nothing to lose, not only burden the Social State financially and economically, but they become anti-social, with each generation worse than the one before. It is a nonsense to suggest that all those without jobs can be retrained.
4. In the service sector, as more countries also make the same switch, it is a race to the bottom on prices. Wages fall, the rich get richer. Social inequality increases.
Why then, would a government choose to make reduction of manufacturing a goal? The UK government has (in effect if not by design) done so since the days of Margaret Thatcher.
A. Upper management in industry was primarily (generally) staffed by upper class idiots who couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.
B. Manufacturing never really recovered from WW2, and desperately needed a LOT of money to modernize, and the money lenders of the City of London were not willing to lend to them. UK plc was in a REALLY bad way by 1970.
C. Manufacturing used a lot of energy and raw materials, meaning the UK would need to invest heavily in power stations, power lines, and mining. Again, there was not a willingness to do this.
D. Manufacturing is dirty (for the environment) - ask the Chinese if you don't believe that.
E. Manufacturing needs long and medium term planning, something politicians (and civil servants) are notoriously bad at.
-
Other people are prepared to do it cheaper = other people get to do it.
-
On manufacturing, like education, the whole system is populated by pseudo scientific data driven bullshit, populated with logical syllogisms where the major tennet is false but it us in nobody's interest to say so.
You then spend your time having meetings about productivity, spend your time listening to the latest 'upskillers' speaking in meaningless neologisms, creating more meaningless positions to manage, because that is what managers do, because with people to manage, managers become indispensable.
The blunt truth is more people talking=less people doing. Sack or promote half your workforce and you don't have anyone to do the fucking job. You then spend the next ten years trying to catch up on the backlog you created, instituting programs of constant change to reinstate what you did fifteen years ago whilst pretending the wheel has been reinvented. Anyone who tells you that you can have constant improvement is bullshitting.
The optimum wheel shape was established 2000 plus years ago. Universities are classic examples, you either go big, and the VC says ' we need more cross department activity so we merge them to get the best creative thinking without boundaries' or you go to small departments and the VC says 'we need to be agile, responsive and flexible'.
Sadly rugby has a lot of people who have made themselves indispensable whilst doing the square root of fuck all.
-
Spot on WWW. Enjoyed that.
-
On manufacturing, like education, the whole system is populated by pseudo scientific data driven bullshit, populated with logical syllogisms where the major tennet is false but it us in nobody's interest to say so.
You then spend your time having meetings about productivity, spend your time listening to the latest 'upskillers' speaking in meaningless neologisms, creating more meaningless positions to manage, because that is what managers do, because with people to manage, managers become indispensable.
The blunt truth is more people talking=less people doing. Sack or promote half your workforce and you don't have anyone to do the fucking job. You then spend the next ten years trying to catch up on the backlog you created, instituting programs of constant change to reinstate what you did fifteen years ago whilst pretending the wheel has been reinvented. Anyone who tells you that you can have constant improvement is bullshitting.
The optimum wheel shape was established 2000 plus years ago. Universities are classic examples, you either go big, and the VC says ' we need more cross department activity so we merge them to get the best creative thinking without boundaries' or you go to small departments and the VC says 'we need to be agile, responsive and flexible'.
Sadly rugby has a lot of people who have made themselves indispensable whilst doing the square root of fuck all.
😂🤣😂🤣
-
Have any players commented on the less teams stuff?
If there's to be 10 teams instead of 13, then that's 18 league games per season rather than 24.
A quarter less games, a quarter less salary ???
Or, a quarter fewer games, enabling smaller squad sizes and similar salaries...
- Players get paid similar wages to now but play fewer games
- Clubs reduce their overall Wage bill by reducing squad size
- Reduced cap but increased number of teams across two divisions still means plenty of employment opportunities for players
I can see that.
But let's say salaries need to reduce by ?1 million per year, that's a lot of squad players at ?50k-?75k each.
Squads can't reduce in size by 15-20 players even with a quarter less games, as such, a number of senior players will need to be axed or take a pay cut.
There may be a reluctance with these senior players to drop down a division so a lot will consider a pay cut as an option.... Once that starts it could become the norm
-
I can see main squads dropping to 35 players, with emergency replacements from academies. I can also see academy programs getting far less funding, and the same for community programs. If clubs do not cut at least ?2m a year from their staff budgets, they will be in trouble. I suspect this is what Newcastle have already done. Will it be enough? I do not think so.
-
Cutting the number of subs would help with squad sizes.
-
I can see a few problems with this
If we're to have a strong championship it needs a decent income otherwise where's the money coming from for decent squads. The best way to do that is some sort of shared deal across both divisions but I can't imagine the top 10 wanting to share their income with the other 10
How do you handle the club that gets relegated? Unless the salaries are similar between the 2 divisions the relegated team will have large contractual outgoings and vastly reduced income. Just like in the old system it will be a case of bounce back immediately or face several years relegated. That will make the leagues look more interesting but will it scare off potential investors?
Salaries need to come down in the premiership psrtly to make it sustainable and partly to nartow the gap with the championship but the salary gap is going up! The rich 3 or 4 somehow seem to be able to outvote the less well off 6 or 7. If this continues then any talk of a strong group of 20 clubs is irrelevant because it's all about the top 4.
-
That will make the leagues look more interesting but will it scare off potential investors?
This isn?t a dig at you Nick, but reading that, and it?s a common refrain, is a big part of the problem. Investor?s by definition need a return and it?s going to be a long time before rugby will provide any return on investment. Would anyone be happy to see their pension funds invested in rugby? I have a portion of my fund in high risk investments but I wouldn?t put it in a rugby club.
What rugby needs more than anything is sponsors and fans. Thinking about that statement, what rugby needs is fans and the sponsors will follow.
-
The alternative is that someone decided that English rugby is ideal for sports-washing. If that were the case then we could an outfit like Saudi?s PIF stepping in. Perhaps they could call it XIVIX ? would need 14 teams to do though. XIX doesn?t have quite the same ring to it.
-
https://twitter.com/spkeene/status/1667499533448753157?s=46&t=uARZeCAc0KFfxprtknDARA
Some interesting updates on our administration. Not sure where the update was published.
-
I can't see anyone investing in Rugby Union in England with the head trauma litigation in the background. For right or wrong, we may be litigated to oblivion.
-
I can't see anyone investing in Rugby Union in England with the head trauma litigation in the background. For right or wrong, we may be litigated to oblivion.
Nobody will invest in clubs in the true sense of "invest" - wanting a financial return on your money. Prem clubs are money pits.
-
Will TNT have to reduce their subs net season because less choice of games?
-
Will TNT have to reduce their subs net season because less choice of games?
Nope might go up. I understand next year's fees are currently being assessed by the Americans.