Eamonn Ryan/IRFU Free to Air Debate

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Sunny said:
Its professional sport and subscription sports channels are part of it.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top