# Eamonn Ryan/IRFU Free to Air Debate



## cork (20 May 2010)

Fair play to Eamonn Ryan.

Sad to see FG coming out in defence of the IRFU.

Not everyone has the subscription channels.


----------



## Betsy Og (20 May 2010)

The sport will be damaged, money-wise, team-quality-wise, spectator interest-wise and, ultimately, at grass roots level. Thats not in anyone's interest. Irish teams already struggle in financial terms Vs French teams in particular.

Do you want Irish provinces to become League of Ireland standard??

Maybe Ryan should get out a bit more, go to the match or to a pub to watch it, he might enjoy himself and do something for the economy. Well intentioned but uninformed meddling is not the way to go.

p.s. I dont have the channels but I survive, or I go to the pub if I'm that pushed. Its not like ordinary people are being deprived an essential service.


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

Sorry but he has scored a big own goal here. Stupid move.

How can he say the Heineken (European cup) is part of who we are? There is no cultural significance to the European cup and there is no way that the IRFU can replace the lost revenue. 

Everyone is free to get the subscription channels if they like. People pay to see new film releases. Why shouldn't they pay to see live international sport? Give RTE the money to bid for the Irish rights if it so important.

I can understand protecting something like the All Ireland finals on cultural grounds but international sport is different and the sports compete on a different level. Telling the Irish teams that they are losing the TV money while their competitors in England, Scotland, Wales and France aren't is unfair.


----------



## cork (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Telling the Irish teams that they are losing the TV money while their competitors in England, Scotland, Wales and France aren't is unfair.




While telling people that they have to subsribe to watch sport is ok?

The government already give sports stars tax breaks and the state has also given millions in connections with AVIVIA Stadium.

The IRFU want their bread buttered on both sides.

A compromise will happen. Maybe the 6 nations will be listed.

FG standing up againist free to view sport is telling of that party


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

cork said:


> While telling people that they have to subsribe to watch sport is ok?
> 
> The government already give sports stars tax breaks and the state has also given millions in connections with AVIVIA Stadium.
> 
> ...


 
They don't have to subscribe. They can go to the game. They can go to a pub. Go to their local rugby club. Go to a friends house. Watch deferred highlights. They can even watch it online if they so wish.

I love seeing all these rugby 'fans' getting hot and bothered. Have obviously missed them at the AIL games or at provincial games before the teams were successful. Now suddenly, rugby is part of who we are....

It would be like the British Government suddenly saying every premiership game should be on free to air tv (better case in my view). It would destroy English football. Same would happen here with rugby.

Also, what about the people who don't like rugby or sport in general? Should their licence money be spent buying rights to it and then have 4 games every weekend taking up the schedule


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

+1 Sunny, good post.


----------



## cork (20 May 2010)

The IRFU want it every way.

Massive State Aid + Tax breaks + freedom to sell rights to whoever.

The IRFU gladly took taxpayers money to refurbish the stadium that was once known as Landsdowne Road.

They want it everyway.

S4C show the Magniers League - Whereas Setanta show it over here.

It is about time the govt stepped in.

Let the IRFU and their buddies in FG oppose TV free to view.


----------



## z104 (20 May 2010)

I understand where he's coming from. The Irish matches of importance belong to the Irish people in my opinion. Not an organisation.


People will still play the sport. People will still have that sense of competition but and here is the but. The quality players will move to France or England where they will be paid more.

A bit like league of Ireland football versus Premiership football.

His intentions are good but not thought through fully.

P.S. I was delighted to find the Munster Leinster match on S4C. Total Fluke. S4C is a terrestrial channell in Wales.


----------



## burger1979 (20 May 2010)

I'm not mad on rugby but i can understand the stand taken by the IRFU and i agree with it. but are the TV deals with reagrds the Heineken cup not negotiated on a european wide basis, as in all the IRFU the ERC and the FRU negotiate as one group with the TV companies? would this not undermine the IRFU's position with these other sporting organisations if they had to show the games free to air? 

I would love to know what the ratings difference is between games that are free to air and on subscription channels. Soccer would be a good example here, rte show the games and also sky so who gets the more viewers? i would have thought RTE as their punditry is better. 

In the end though rugby, and i heard philip browne talk of it like this on the last word on monday last i think it was, as a business. If the money is not there then the development of the game cannot continue in its present form. Also heard on the same programme Eamonn Ryan saying that they look at this thing every 3 years.


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

cork said:


> The IRFU want it every way.
> 
> Massive State Aid + Tax breaks + freedom to sell rights to whoever.
> 
> ...


 
We get it Cork you're a FF man.

I'm not a rugby fan but I have to agree that free to air would be a bad thing for the sport. Whether we agree with the principle or not, money plays such an important part in sport and especially since rugby is also a professional game the IRFU would find it much harder to compete with French and English counterparts. The IRFU would have to come up with the cash somwehere else via ticket sales or sponsorship.


----------



## cork (20 May 2010)

Tg4 did gave great coverage to the Celtic Leage.
S4C does the same for the Magners League.

Bigger Audiences + Higher Ad rates and sponsorship and matchs will be enjoyed by more.

The IRFU and the FG buddies can't see the wood from the trees.


----------



## TarfHead (20 May 2010)

If you're looking to throw mud at a political party, aim it at the Greens.

Eamon Ryan's points do not stand up. The HEC is not of national interest.

I have not seen any figures for people denied access to live coverage for economic reasons. Who is this constituency ?

The HEC is a big event in Ireland when Irish teams are in the knockout stages. Munster, unless they arrest their current slump, may not be there next season. Leinster have underachieved in the HEC and will do so again, especially if the new coach doesn't hit the ground running.

If the provinces lose the SKY money, there'll be no more Trevor Halstead, Rua Tipoki, Doug Howlett, Rocky Elsom or Isa Nacewa. Furthermore, the younger players, such as Kearney, Sexton, Heaslip, Earls & Ferris, could end up in England or France. Professional sport, especially one as attritional as rugby, is a short career, and players have to look out for their own interests.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

Good post TaftHead. I remember one pundit wearing a black armband on RTE after the HC rights were bought by SKY. He now advertises for them. Strange what money can do...


----------



## cork (20 May 2010)

If it leads to the listing of the 6 nations - Is it not worth it?

Rugby is no longer the sport of the privilidged - It should be open to a wider audience.

How much has this Govt. given to the IRFU?


----------



## Complainer (20 May 2010)

If the IRFU want to give back the stadium, or at least the pile of State money that they got to subsidise the stadium, then they can get back up on their high horse about the TV rights.


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> If the IRFU want to give back the stadium, or at least the pile of State money that they got to subsidise the stadium, then they can get back up on their high horse about the TV rights.


 
What's that got to do with tv rights for the European cup?

Munster don't play there. Ulster don't play there. Leinster don't even play there. And Connaught don't play there.

Might as well say that the GAA shouldn't charge RTE for showing their games because the Government gave them money to build Croke Park


----------



## TarfHead (20 May 2010)

cork said:


> If it leads to the listing of the 6 nations - Is it not worth it?


 
Are the 2 issues interdependent ? The 6N could be listed, leaving the HEC as-is. National team versus provincial/club team, six nations, or governing bodies, versus one (ERC). The 2 aren't directly comparable.



cork said:


> Rugby is no longer the sport of the privilidged - It should be open to a wider audience.


 
Rugby hasn't been privileged for years. Sure don't Munster fans revel in telling us all how ordinary and proletarian they all are  ? And it's spread is given momentum by the continued success and profile of the provincial/club teams.



cork said:


> How much has this Govt. given to the IRFU?


 
Yawn . You can attempt to justify anything with that line of argument. Try turning up at the Curragh and demanding to be let drive a tank  ! The money wasn't given with conditions attached.

The successes of Munster in 2006, 2008, Leinster in 2009 and the national team's Grand Slam has given more joy to more people in this country, and abroad, than any Government action. Long may that continue.


----------



## cork (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Might as well say that the GAA shouldn't charge RTE for showing their games because the Government gave them money to build Croke Park



If the IRFU sees itself as a commercial organisation - let all state grants to them be withdrawn.



Some rugby players also get tax relief big time.

If the IRFU want to be commerial - let them.

Let them paddle their own canoe.

But Alas, they want it both ways.

Eamon Ryan is 100% right. 

FG have again shown their true colours.


----------



## Complainer (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Might as well say that the GAA shouldn't charge RTE for showing their games because the Government gave them money to build Croke Park


Yep, I'd say that too.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

cork said:


> If the IRFU sees itself as a commercial organisation - let all state grants to them be withdrawn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you suggesting that the IRFU should not seek to maximise their income? The GAA has made a fortune off hosting Rugby games which were televised by SKY. Like the GAA the IRFU spends most of it's income developing the game at club level.  In that sense all sporting organisations are commercially orientated; they need income to survive. That holds true for everything from a swimming club to a football team.
If Eamonn Ryan wants the games on RTE he should tell them to out-bid SKY instead of spending a fortune out-bidding them for first airing on American shows like Lost and 24.


----------



## Latrade (21 May 2010)

Six Nations should be FTA, as it currently is. HC shouldn't. Well I'd prefer if it were of course, same with any big sporting event, I'd prefer if they were all free and I didn't have to pay for 20 odd sports channels just to watch the odd game. However, that's not life.

If all other Associations across Europe were forced to do the same, then fine it's a level playing field, but Ryan's suggesting Ireland is hamstrung against all its competitors. Yeah, lets see how that works out.

The simple fact is that clubs rely heavily on tv revenue, crowds coming through the gates hasn't been the main revenue source for years now in any code. 

It's nonsensical to argue that IRFU/FAI have had government funding and so owe us, that argument doesn't wash. Unless those arguing that and happen to currently work in the PS are happy for me, as a tax payer, to come in and sit at their desk, use their PC, maybe even use their car that they get mileage for to get my money back. Or because I got a grant to re-insulate my loft and get a more efficient boiler that you're all free to come around and sit in my house when the heating's on.

Six Nations, yup free to air, couldn't agree more (isn't it already?) HC? Nope.


----------



## Sunny (21 May 2010)

Latrade said:


> Or because I got a grant to re-insulate my loft and get a more efficient boiler that you're all free to come around and sit in my house when the heating's on.


 
Throw in a cup of tea and a digestive buscuit and I am there...

How many people does Eamonn Ryan think will sit down and watch Leinster V Treviso on a Saturday evening on RTE? Do he honestly think 500,000 people will considering they would do well to sell out the ground. If RTE had the rights, they would cherry pick the big games and not show the less galmerous pool games whereas now I can watch every game involving the three teams in the Heineken Cup and sometimes Connaught as well. It's the advantage of dedicated sports channels.


----------



## Latrade (21 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Throw in a cup of tea and a digestive buscuit and I am there...


 
Jaysus, you want the shirt off my back too?

It's Connaught I'd fear for if this goes ahead, criminally underfunded already, even in Magners league they hardly get a look in unless it's against the bigger teams. Yet despite all this they're slowly chipping away with some improvement each year. The TV money is essential for them.

RTE will just show Leinster and Munster. Ultser and Connaught will get a token showing when they play the other two if Magners League is RTE and for what? For who?

Let's face it, it's only the Six Nations/World Cup and the latter stages of the HC (if there's an Irish interest) that gets any real attention, Magners League even less so. 

Outside the national team, it's still a minority sport and so needs the income from TV.


----------



## cork (21 May 2010)

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that the IRFU should not seek to maximise their income? .



This is the kernel of it.

An organisation that receives so many millions from the tax payer - should have a duty to the taxpayer.

If they want to maximise their revenue - let them do it without public money.

TG4 did a great job with the Celtic Leage before Setanta got the rights.


----------



## Leo (21 May 2010)

cork said:


> If the IRFU sees itself as a commercial organisation - let all state grants to them be withdrawn.


 
The large US multi-national I work for gets millions each year in state grants. What do you think encouraged so many international organisations to set up here in the first place? So your suggestion that commercial organisations shouldn't seek or receive state funding is without merit.



cork said:


> Eamon Ryan is 100% right. FG have again shown their true colours.


 
Spoken (typed?) like a troll...


----------



## cork (21 May 2010)

Leo said:


> Spoken (typed?) like a troll...





Many people cannot afford SKY. Does FG think that such people be denied from watching live Sport?

TG4 did a great job with the Celtic League. S4C are doing a great job with the Magners. Does FG favour all sporting events be sold to the highest bidder?

Fair play to Eamon Ryan in standing up to their IRFU and their political buddies.


----------



## Sunny (21 May 2010)

We get it. Eamonn Ryan and FF good. FG bad. 

You still haven't given one good reason why the Euopean Cup should be considered as a major importance to Irish society. 

The fact that Eamonn Ryan calls it the Heineken Cup says it all really.


----------



## cork (21 May 2010)

If the Munster team was not  of  major sporting  importance - the taxpayer would not have bothered funding Tomond Park.


----------



## Sunny (21 May 2010)

cork said:


> If the Munster team was not of major sporting importance - the taxpayer would not have bothered funding Tomond Park.


 
Why? Did it have nothing to do with creating jobs or other social and economic reasons?


----------



## Purple (21 May 2010)

cork said:


> If the Munster team was not  of  major sporting  importance - the taxpayer would not have bothered funding Tomond Park.



The Irish government funds all sort of minority interest sports and interests. The Munster Rugby team is of national importance in the Peoples Republic of Cork and but in Ireland it is only of regional importance.


----------



## TarfHead (21 May 2010)

cork said:


> If the Munster team was not of major sporting importance - the taxpayer would not have bothered funding Tomond Park.


 
One of the issues being debated is whether HEC matches are of '_national importance_'. I think it's fair to say that tomorrow's final is not and a pool game featuring Munster playing in Italy is also not of national importance.

So, if SKY & Setanta were to be denied the opportunity to bid for the rights involving Irish teams, or rather 2 of the teams since this would be for RoI only, then the market is limited to RTE or TV3.

If RTE outbid TV3, is that an appropriate use of their income ? If TV3 outbid RTE, people would be complaining about the quality of presentation and analysis. Remember RWC 2007 ?

And then 'cork' could blame if all on Fine Gael  ?

PS I assume you're spelling '_Tomond Park_' phonetically ? If so, should it not be '_Tomind_'  ?


----------



## Leo (21 May 2010)

cork said:


> Many people cannot afford SKY. Does FG think that such people be denied from watching live Sport?


 
I'm not affiliated with, nor do I have any allegances to, or affinity with any particular political party, so I can't comment on their policies. Playing party politics is confusing the issue, not addressing it. Should these games be placed on the free-to-air listing? 

If the issue here is about people having the right to watch live sport, there are many live games in everyone's locality that they can attend in person and support their local team. 

Of course, the quality of the fare on offer in the local park is vastly inferior to that of top-level competitions such as the HC. But much of the reason that these competitions are of such high quality is that they are successful commercial enterprises that rely heavily on TV money. Eliminate that TV money and the quality will inevitably suffer. 12m is a sizeable income stream to replace regardless of economic climate.

I just feel that putting whatever is popular at the moment on the list and pretending they are of national or cultural significance is just political pandering to the masses who have boarded the band-waggon.


----------



## cork (21 May 2010)

Eliminate that TV money and the quality will inevitably suffer.

Munster Rugby survived before Sky.

The Irish Taxpayer is already providing tax breaks and funding for the sport.

The IRFU seems to believe in the "free lunch" principle.

If they want their Sky money - all other taxpayers funding and tax breaks for "Star" players should be withdrawn.

This money could then be put into Community Sports facilities.


----------



## Leo (21 May 2010)

cork said:


> Munster Rugby survived before Sky.


 
Yeah, but Munster, and all provincial rugby was of far inferior quality before Sky. It was certainly a long way from anything that could be considered of national or cultural significance.



cork said:


> The Irish Taxpayer is already providing tax breaks and funding for the sport.


 
They're also providing tax breaks and funding for the company I work for too. Best of luck getting anything for free here! They provide huge tax breaks to those in the horse breading/training game too. Massive tax breaks were provided to build hotels in recent years as well. None of these entitle the tax payer to products or services at below market rates.



cork said:


> The IRFU seems to believe in the "free lunch" principle.


 
The IRFU are looking after their interests and generating as much income as they can while their sport peaks in popularity. Those in power there would be remiss to waste any such opportunity. Again, I have no link to any rugby club apart from playing underage for a couple of years many moons ago, so no VI there.

Every sporting organisation and business in the country try to maximise their revenue, and seek as much government funding as possible in doing so. Anything less would be foolish.



cork said:


> This money could then be put into Community Sports facilities.


 
Much of the Sky money does end up in community facilities and grass roots development. Just look at the increases in funding at local level since this TV money became available. We all know that if the government withdrew this funding, that very little of it would be handed to community projects.


----------



## Staples (21 May 2010)

Latrade said:


> It's nonsensical to argue that IRFU/FAI have had government funding and so owe us, that argument doesn't wash.


 
It's unrealistic at this point but hardly nonsensical.

If free-to-air viewing had been made a condition of state-funding for the Aviva, I suspect we wouldn't be even having this debate now.


----------



## cork (21 May 2010)

Leo said:


> Every sporting organisation and business in the country try to maximise their revenue, and seek as much government funding as possible in doing so. Anything less would be foolish.




So the taxpayer should fund via taxation and then via a subscription to SKY?

A payment on the double?

The IRFU needs to make their minds up.


----------



## mathepac (21 May 2010)

Leo said:


> Yeah, but Munster, and all provincial rugby was of far inferior quality before Sky. ...


That is untrue and very unfair; who beat Australia in 1967; who beat the All Blacks in 1978? 

My 2p worth on the thread topic. The fact is that the rising tide of of commercial sponsorship of a professional game has lifted all the boats and Mr. Ryan clearly does not understand the hard cruel real world he is insulated from in the cosy confines he inhabits.

BTW where were Mr. Ryan  & Co when Andy Ward and his tightly-knit bunch of Ulster colleagues blazed the success trail for Irish provincial sides in Europe? In the Dáil bar no doubt bending their superannuated elbows. (heavily subsidised by me & you but I don't get to use the facilities)


----------



## Purple (22 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> That is untrue and very unfair; who beat Australia in 1967; who beat the All Blacks in 1978?
> 
> My 2p worth on the thread topic. The fact is that the rising tide of of commercial sponsorship of a professional game has lifted all the boats and Mr. Ryan clearly does not understand the hard cruel real world he is insulated from in the cosy confines he inhabits.


Lets not pretend that Irish rugby in general, and Munster in particular, reached some sort of high-point in the 70’s. The Munster team of the last few years is vastly superior to anything that came before it, the fantastic achievement of beating the All Blacks not withstanding (pointing out that it was not a full strength international Kiwi team always seems churlish).


----------



## cork (22 May 2010)

At the end of the day - a compromise will be reached that will involve the listing of more sports events. This will have a knock on effect on more sporting organisations.

It will gaurentee that more sporting events will indeed be free to view.


----------



## mathepac (22 May 2010)

Purple said:


> Lets not pretend that Irish rugby in general, and Munster in particular, reached some sort of high-point in the 70’s. ...


I'm not pretending anything. Irish rugby, and Munster in particular has *consistently* punched  substantially above its weight and has provided the island in both the  amateur and professional eras both with an almost unbelievable  level of international success and representation as well as  a focus for unity and co-operation that many other more populist endeavours lacked.

By any objective measure, (island population, playing population, real  estate invested in pitches and training facilities, total budget,  international rating vs. monies expended or any other criterion) the  IRFU and the teams they fund and field are extraordinarily successful.

For an idiot like Ryan to propose damaging the investment in our rugby players and teams,  an extremely valuable natural resource, (what's Ryan's portfolio again?) through his asinine proposals is a sacking offence, IMHO.



Purple said:


> ... The  Munster team of the last few years is vastly superior to anything that  came before it, ...


I know that, you know that and I believe I know why (ability, dedication, belief, money and smart people who used them wisely); could some-one sit Ryan down on an organically recycled hessian sofa somewhere and explain it to him in mono-syllables?



Purple said:


> ...  the fantastic achievement of beating the All Blacks not  withstanding (pointing out that it was not a full strength international  Kiwi team always seems churlish).


The Munster team and the Thomand Park supporters were not at full-strength either; my brother and I had started in new jobs and neither of us could get time off. 

BTW, all you can ask of any team is that they beat the opposition selection fielded against them, whether that team is called the All Blacks or the Borris-in-Ossorry U12 Girls' 1st XV.

Philip Browne for Taoiseach, Mr. Ryan for the dunce's cap.


----------



## cork (24 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> For an idiot like Ryan to propose damaging the investment in our rugby players and teams,  an extremely valuable natural resource, (what's Ryan's portfolio again?) through his asinine proposals is a sacking offence, IMHO..



The Rugby association had no problem with accepting millions of tax payers support.

Rugby players have no problem with the tax breaks.

Now they want to maximise revenue. 

Let them - but they should be a sea change in govt. policy.

A message has to be sent out to all sporting organisations.


----------



## Sunny (24 May 2010)

cork said:


> The Rugby association had no problem with accepting millions of tax payers support.
> 
> Rugby players have no problem with the tax breaks.
> 
> ...


 
The Government receives a multiple back of what it spends on sport in this Country. Every economic analysis carried out on the subject proves that.

No-one including the Minister or yourself has made one good argument as to why European Cup games are so important. We pretend we are some sort of sporting mad nation. We are not. We are an 'Occasion' mad Country. 
Athletics is a perfect example. Athletics is a much bigger part of Irish sporting culture and history than rugby is and yet RTE cannot be bothered to show the World Championships depsite having paid out for the rights. Why doesn't the Minister look at that instead of involving himself in something that is working perfectly fine.


----------



## mathepac (24 May 2010)

I'm not sure what point your post is trying to make but I'm a  bit worried by the  Ryan-like nature of it.

Sporting organisations, amateur and professional, have no problem accepting tax payers' support. Few of them generate anything like the international success and achievements of the IRFU  or anything like the positive revenue streams coming into the country by travelling foreign supporters attending representative matches.

The Government granted tax-breaks to professional rugby players, based on the business case made to them by the IRFU; the Dept, of Finance / Revenue would have weighed the pros and cons.

The IRFU runs the professional and amateur games in this country; the revenues generated from the professional game are invested in the schools and amateur clubs as well as in coaching, facilities development, games development officers and  other initiatives. Of course the IRFU wants to maximise revenue - can you name a successful, professionally-run, commercial organisation that wants to minimize revenue?

I agree about sending out a message to all sporting organisation and it should read something like, "Either be as successful and egalitarian as the IRFU or face the withdrawal of tax-breaks and other government funding".

Eamonn Ryan please note: Mary Hanafin can arrange a grind to improve your poor sums and spreadsheet training is available from the Dept, of Finance.


----------



## cork (24 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> The Government granted tax-breaks to professional rugby players, based on the business case made to them by the IRFU; the Dept, of Finance / Revenue would have weighed the pros and cons.



It is about time that rock stars, tax exiles and sports people paid more tax.

How much does the IRFU pay lobbyists?

France has the Heiken Cup on Free to Air.

It seems to be working for them.


----------



## Sunny (24 May 2010)

cork said:


> It is about time that rock stars, tax exiles and sports people paid more tax.
> 
> How much does the IRFU pay lobbyists?
> 
> ...


 
Sports stars do pay tax. They get a rebate when they retire. Not every sportsperson is on premiership wages. You are hitting athletes and other low paid sports people then. 

This isn't the States. Can't imagine they pay lobbyists anything unless you can prove something?

Actually it doesn't. The games are split between subscription and pay per view. They want to change that but you can't compare Ireland and France. There is much more competition in France than here with RTE and TV3 so it is not as damaging. There are also much more stations on which to show the actual games.


----------



## TarfHead (24 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> We pretend we are some sort of sporting mad nation. We are not. We are an 'Occasion' mad Country.


 
+1

Something I read this weekend was along the lines of '_.. 82000 people crammed into Croke Park last year to see Kerry win the All Ireland. Last week, just 5000 turned up to see them open their defence of the title .._'.


----------



## cork (24 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> They get a rebate when they retire. Not every sportsperson is on premiership wages.



Either are the vast majority of the population.

The govt. has paid millions over to bodies like the IFRU - It is about time govt got better bang for this.

Fair play to Ryan putting his foot down with the IRFU. Let a strong message be sent out to the FAI and GAA.

These bodies lobbying govt for funds and getting addiditional money from pay for view tv companies.


----------



## mathepac (24 May 2010)

> It is about time that rock stars, tax exiles and sports people paid more tax ...


Off-topic generic rant, this thread is about rugby.


> ... How much does the IRFU pay lobbyists? ...


I have no idea if they employ them or what they pay them. Do you know what they or the GAA, FAI, etc pay or what the Government PR budget is? If you do please post the numbers.



> ... France has the Heiken Cup on Free to Air ...


 Not entirely true, but even if it were maybe Mr. Ryan needs to commission some research, have Mary H. do a few sums and maybe even find some common-sense.

Metropolitan France has a population of about 62M (the island of Ireland is about 4M) that means (pay attention Mr. Ryan) they have 15.5 times the population and consequently can demand higher contributions from sponsors.

FFR has 213,000 registered players and 1,700 clubs, 7 of which compete in top-class European competitions.

IRFU has 95,000 registered players and 205 clubs, 4 of which compete in top-class European competitions.

In relative terms we are minnows; disruption to any single source of income (there will of course  be less sources, given the smaller populations)  is likely to have a relatively greater impact.


> ... It seems to be working for them.


It sure does and part of the reason for that is simply that they are bigger, have more money, more revenue streams, more clout, more clubs, more players, coaches, managers earning greater salaries and anecdotally at least more experience at the professional Union game, as well as a small number of established League clubs.

Please compare like with like; simplistic, unresearched arguments may be regarded as simply trolling, even if initiated by  junior Ministers.


----------



## Sunny (24 May 2010)

cork said:


> Either are the vast majority of the population.
> 
> The govt. has paid millions over to bodies like the IFRU - It is about time govt got better bang for this.
> 
> ...


 
You are trolling now. Or else you just sound like a broken record. 

Wouldn't say you have ever set foot in a rubgy, gaa or soccer club in your entire life.

Just stick to watching sport on tv.


----------



## TarfHead (24 May 2010)

There is one other benefit of having the HEC on PPV; it keeps Tom McGurk off our screens. I watched the RTE highlights on Saturday evening and McGurk makes me want to put my foot through the TV .

At least BillO understands that his role is to allow the panellists time to answer questions and provide an analysis. McGurk seems to think people tune in to listen to him and continually cuts across the experts.

When he referred to The Barbarians as the Ba*r*Ba*r*s, more than once on Saturday, he made SKY never more appealing.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2010)

It should also be remembered that French clubs are privately owned, many of them by very rich men and most clubs don’t own their own stadiums, the local municipality does and the clubs have access to them for knock-down prices.

In short the French don’t have the same costs associated with funding the amateur game, they have huge private financial backing, they have a much bigger income from advertising, they don’t have the cost of maintaining their grounds, they receive massive indirect financial support from the state (their grounds) and the games are still not free to air!

Cork, can you address any of the above please?


----------



## Purple (24 May 2010)

TarfHead said:


> There is one other benefit of having the HEC on PPV; it keeps Tom McGurk off our screens. I watched the RTE highlights on Saturday evening and McGurk makes me want to put my foot through the TV .
> 
> At least BillO understands that his role is to allow the panellists time to answer questions and provide an analysis. McGurk seems to think people tune in to listen to him and continually cuts across the experts.
> 
> When he referred to The Barbarians as the Ba*r*Ba*r*s, more than once on Saturday, he made SKY never more appealing.



Yes but the match commentry on Sky is always brutal.


----------



## TarfHead (24 May 2010)

Purple said:


> Yes but the match commentry on Sky is always brutal.


 
True, but ..

Ryle Nugent ?
Fred Cogley ?

Not a glass house that RTE can throw stones at  !


----------



## Purple (24 May 2010)

OK, lets get some facts here.
Of the €12 million that the IRFU get from TV rights how much of it is actually with Sky and how much of it is for the European Cup (they must get a portion of the SKY money for the 6-Nations as well)?
If RTE showed the European Cup how much would they pay the IRFU for it?

What we need to establish is what the net loss to the IRFU would be and would that balance out the extra viewership (particularly the extra kids watching it).

All the rants about Finna Gael and showing the IRFU etc adds nothing.
What are the costs and what are the benefits.


----------



## cork (24 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Wouldn't say you have ever set foot in a rubgy, gaa or soccer club in your entire life.
> 
> Just stick to watching sport on tv.


Wrong

The FG stance on this is a disgrace. Have FG a clue on the amount of taxpayers money going into rugby?

What lobbying have the IRFU done on TDs?

Pretty legitimate questions IMO.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2010)

cork said:


> Wrong
> 
> The FG stance on this is a disgrace. Have FG a clue on the amount of taxpayers money going into rugby?
> 
> ...




Give it a rest will you. 

The issue is whether it is better for the game to have it free to air. I'm not sure either way myself so I'm welcome dome constructive discussion rather than constant comments about FG.


----------



## cork (24 May 2010)

But say with free to view - Didn't Tg4 do a great job with the Celtic League?

S4c are doing a great job with the Magniers.

Welsh people came watch their games free to view but the Irish have to pay for them.

Is this fair when our government are supporting the game?


----------



## TarfHead (24 May 2010)

cork said:


> But say with free to view - Didn't Tg4 do a great job with the Celtic League?



Did they ? I don't remember them doing as good a job as Setanta have, i.e. re-runs of coverage, highlights, panel analysis.



cork said:


> S4c are doing a great job with the Magniers.


 Are they ? I can't say - S4C isn't FTA where I am .



cork said:


> Welsh people came watch their games free to view but the Irish have to pay for them.



Rugby is the #1 game in Wales, so not a valid comparison.



cork said:


> Is this fair when our government are supporting the game?



Yet again, you repeat the assertion that Govt funding = free access to the public, yet when challenged on that point, you repeat yourself, or go off on some anti-Fine Gael rant


----------



## cork (25 May 2010)

Govt funding = free access to the public

It should mean a better deal for the taxpayer.


----------



## Leo (25 May 2010)

cork said:


> Govt funding = free access to the public


 
That, as I'm sure you know yourself is 100% incorrect. Remember the government funding of hotels? What are you getting free there?

Cork, you have consistantly failed to address any of the substantive questions asked of you here, and just come back with the same invalid arguments.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

Leo said:


> That, as I'm sure you know yourself is 100% incorrect. Remember the government funding of hotels? What are you getting free there?


Not quite the same situation as the IRFU. The doesn't direcly fund hotels, though it does provide for significant tax breaks. In the case of Landsdowne, the state handed over large amounts of direct cash funding.


----------



## Latrade (25 May 2010)

cork said:


> But say with free to view - Didn't Tg4 do a great job with the Celtic League?
> 
> S4c are doing a great job with the Magniers.
> 
> ...


 
Domestic league stuff is different, remember the main issue is the EC here. 

As pointed out, sports development is in the national interest and just receiving a grant or public funding does not automatically mean you have the right to access it. 

Otherwise next time you see a parked Gardai car, open the door, get in and drive it away. Afterall didn't you pay for it.

There are other ways the state can profit from sporting success. Look at the 6 nations win as an example. First off you've the VAT take on ticket sales, then you've the VAT take on sales of replica shirts and merchandise, then you've the VAT take on the DVDs that were bought, then you've the VAT and duty take on people going to the pub to watch the game, then you've the take on the visiting fans who're comming over and staying in hotels and drinking in pubs and eating in restaurants (and not just one day and night, most come over on thursday and make a weekend of it). 

You've then the airport taxes of visiting fans and the fans who go over to watch the away games. 

They don't just give the money and get nothing back, sporting success adds and gives back in the short and long term.


----------



## cork (25 May 2010)

Leo said:


> Cork, you have consistantly failed to address any of the substantive questions asked of you here, and just come back with the same invalid arguments.



The Franch have no problems with free to view.

Can't even see where the IRFU has even come up with basic costings. FG also seem to have no costings on their website to back up their view point.

The Taxpayer here deserves a better deal. 

Monies gone into Landsdowne Road etc


----------



## Sunny (25 May 2010)

Grand. You win by repeating the same thing over and over again and by ignoring every argument put to you. 

Just to summerise for people. FG suck. The IRFU are money sucking vulchers who rob the rugby loving people of this country of any chance to watch the games. Eamonn Ryan is a hero to the ordinary man on the street and FF are the party of the people.


----------



## TarfHead (25 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Grand. You win by repeating the same thing over and over again and by ignoring every argument put to you.
> 
> Just to summerise for people. FG suck. The IRFU are money sucking vulchers who rob the rugby loving people of this country of any chance to watch the games. Eamonn Ryan is a hero to the ordinary man on the street and FF are the party of the people.


 
.. and that the taxpayer has a implicit entitlement to anything that the Government has funded, either partly or wholly.

Now, I'm off to borrow an Army tank to head for the National Gallery to borrow some Jack B Yeats paintings to hang in the downstairs jacks. Later, I'll head out to the airport for one of those Aer Lingus 'tax payers go free' tickets for a flight to London and stay in the penthouse suite of one of those hotels owned by NAMA.

Thanks cork, you've opened my eyes !


----------



## csirl (25 May 2010)

The pay-per-view or subscription TV route is a dangerous one for a sports organisation to take. While it can reap short term finanicial rewards, long term it can be damaging as youngsters tend to take up sports that they see on TV and not all will have parents with PPV or subscriptions. Notwithstanding this, Sky Sports can be found in the majority of family households and so can no longer be regarded as a limited audience channel like some of the other subscription services.

Personally, I dont agree with the list. Sports should be able to make their own decisions regarding what they want to do with their events. And its not as if there is a shortage of sport suitable for TV. There are plenty of sports events out there that RTE can cover. 

I also think the proposed list is tired and outdated. Some of the horse events e.g. Dublin Horse Show, hardly register in the minds of most sports fans, particularly younger ones. 

Also, the Heineken Cup only started in 1995, so it can't be regarded as a traditional event that is part of Irish sporting culture. We need to wait a few years to see if it lasts - history is littered with sporting competitions which, for a short few years captured the publics imagination, but ultimately reverted to being minority events supported by only hard core supporters of the particular sport.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

TarfHead said:


> .
> Now, I'm off to borrow an Army tank to head for the National Gallery to borrow some Jack B Yeats paintings to hang in the downstairs jacks.


Just for the record, you can go see Jack's paintings at the National Gallery (without your tank) for free, any time you like.


----------



## TarfHead (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Just for the record, you can go see Jack's paintings at the National Gallery (without your tank) for free, any time you like.


 
Is the NG open 24/7 ? If not, then I'll take them home with me. It's my _right_ as a taxpayer  !


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

If you hide under the seats at closing time, you can sleep there all night.


----------



## Mpsox (25 May 2010)

Personally I don't have Sky Sports and can truthfully say I don't know anyone who does. It bugs me to have to go to the pub if I want to watch Munster or Leinster(I'm not confused, just a Red married to a Blue)  and if I had to go and watch the Internationals down there as well, I'd be very annoyed. I'd also be very annoyed if I had to make a choice between dragging my kids to pubs to watch games, and thus associating pubs with sports for them, or shell out hundreds extra to watch them at home.

The IRFU arguements is partially flawed, Sky could still bid for matches, as could RTE so they would get some TV income in. Free to view is not free to air. They could charge their advertisers and sponsers more because they get more visability and that would offset some of the loss in income. They could be creative and do a deal with RTE to take a cut of advertising and sponsership money RTE get in, or insist as part of the deal that the AIL/schools/minor internationals get far more coverage. Instead they they just seem to have thrown the toys out of the crib.


----------



## Sunny (25 May 2010)

Mpsox said:


> Personally I don't have Sky Sports and can truthfully say I don't know anyone who does. It bugs me to have to go to the pub if I want to watch Munster or Leinster(I'm not confused, just a Red married to a Blue) and if I had to go and watch the Internationals down there as well, I'd be very annoyed. I'd also be very annoyed if I had to make a choice between dragging my kids to pubs to watch games, and thus associating pubs with sports for them, or shell out hundreds extra to watch them at home.
> 
> The IRFU arguements is partially flawed, Sky could still bid for matches, as could RTE so they would get some TV income in. Free to view is not free to air. They could charge their advertisers and sponsers more because they get more visability and that would offset some of the loss in income. They could be creative and do a deal with RTE to take a cut of advertising and sponsership money RTE get in, or insist as part of the deal that the AIL/schools/minor internationals get far more coverage. Instead they they just seem to have thrown the toys out of the crib.


 
That you don't have Sky Sports is your choice. I don't like the fact that films go to the cinema and then DVD or Sky Movies gets to show them before they go on free to air stations. Not going to turn around to the film studio that made Harry Potter though and tell them that since so many children want to see the film, they can't seel their rights to who they like and must make the film available to free to air television stations despite the fact that they can't pay as much for the rights.

Its professional sport and subscription sports channels are part of it.


----------



## Mpsox (25 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Its professional sport and subscription sports channels are part of it.


 
But should they be? Is it really the best way of doing it? Take English football as an example, since the advent of Sky, there is hardly a club in England that hasn't got into financial difficulties or isn't run on a sound commercial basis. 

The only reason I don't have Sky is because I'm bored with the wimpishness of soccer and I can't stand their commentators and can't justify the expense for the handful of rugby matches that are on it that I want to watch


----------



## cork (25 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> I don't like the fact that films go to the cinema and then DVD or Sky Movies gets to show them before they go on free to air stations.




The Irish Taxpayer hasnt put 100s of millions building studio lots. 

Has somebody a link to the IRFUs costings on this?

How gullable to they think the taxpayer is?


----------



## Sunny (25 May 2010)

cork said:


> The Irish Taxpayer hasnt put 100s of millions building studio lots.
> 
> Has somebody a link to the IRFUs costings on this?
> 
> How gullable to they think the taxpayer is?


 
Actually we have given tens of millions in tax breaks each year to films that were filmed here. Don't ever remember getting an invite to the premier of Braveheart. 

Just like when they don't build the new Abbey, I don't expect the Governement to turn around and say we are not allowing you to charge people to come watch the play.


----------



## cork (25 May 2010)

Eamon Ryan under EU law can list whatever events he wants.

Let the IRFU come up with their case and even they might have some costings.

Many genuine rugby supporters cannot afford expensive Sky packages.

After paying their taxes - What does the IRFU do for these people?

Accepting tax paypayers money and selling on broadcast right to Mucdoch is not on.

Fair play to Ryan. The IRFU and their politcal buddies have yet to come up with the most basic costings.


----------

