Mark McCafferty is a disgrace

First topic message reminder :

Interview link below.

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2011-12/rugby/story/157976.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCafferty has suggested that a flawed qualification system is largely to blame for English rugby's failure to make a significant impression on this season's Heineken Cup.

England's leading clubs have struggled to keep pace with their European rivals in recent seasons with only one side - Premiership champions Saracens - likely to make the quarter-finals this term. The Premiership provided just one quarter-finalist two seasons ago in the shape of Northampton and the Saints, beaten finalists last year, were one of only two teams alongside Leicester to make the knock-out stages in that competition.

McCafferty believes that the Premiership's leading sides and their French Top 14 counterparts are treated unfairly by qualifying arrangements that he claims favour those teams competing in the RaboDirect PRO12. The Celtic-Italian league provides 10 teams for the Heineken Cup with the three highest placed sides from Ireland and Wales and the two sides from Scotland and Italy guaranteed qualification. Additional places are available depending on the destiny of the previous season's Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup.

McCafferty argues that the battle to claim one of the six automatic spots open to the 12-team Premiership and the Top 14 is a much tougher task - a point that he is set to put to tournament organisers European Rugby Cup Ltd.

"At the moment pretty much everyone in the PRO12 knows they've qualified for next year's Heineken, whereas French and English sides are still fighting tooth and nail and will be doing so in the middle of the Heineken Cup next season to ensure qualification for the season after," he told the Sunday Telegraph. "Make it more meritocratic and everyone will have to take their leagues seriously."

McCafferty went on to explain how he believes the process should work. "Our view is that Heineken Cup qualification should be based on league form," he said. "There are three of those - the Aviva Premiership, the Top 14 Orange in France and the Pro 12 - and you should take the qualifying teams from the best sides in those leagues. Then it's a completely meritocratic system."

This season the 24 teams in the six Heineken Cup pools are made up of 11 from the PRO12, six from the Top 14 and seven from the Premiership. McCafferty believes it should be eight across the board.

"We've put that proposal on the table but we know there will be a huge amount of resistance to it because it means countries in the PRO12, a league which currently has 10 places allocated to it, might go down to eight. There will be concerns that it could lead to one or two countries not being represented in the Heineken Cup. But the price you pay for that inclusivity is not necessarily having the best against the best."

McCafferty also highlighted what he sees as the Irish sides' ability to prioritise the Heineken Cup over domestic matters. "The real change over the past four or five years," McCafferty added, "is that the Irish sides have become more successful in Europe because of the priority they have put on it.

"After round four of this season's tournament I looked at the starting line-ups of Ulster, Leinster and Munster [all through to the quarter-finals] and only four of the 45 starters in the Heineken Cup were retained for their PRO12 league games the next weekend. Take a model where the top eight clubs qualify from each league and they wouldn't be able to take as many risks. That's the issue our clubs have.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So let me get this straight, you want to handicap the amount of teams in the Rabbo and give 2 additional spaces to English sides to make it fairier? How is it fair that England get to enter 6 teams already? Just because other Unions have streamlined their playing pools into a smaller number of teams to increase their standard and squad strenght.

The biggest issue I have with the guy is that he has completely failed to identify the problem and yet again is looking at it from a English Club increased Revenue standpoint. In truth there are 2 bigger factors at play.

1. Relegation - Its forcing English sides to play cup rugby. Get rid of that and your teams migth stand a better chance.

2. Quality - In truth the quality of squads is no longer available to English sides. French Clubs assemble the squads for the most money so have all the biggest names and the Home Unions to a large degree are keeping their stars at home. As they dont have to split resources by as many clubs as the English do it will make them naturally stronger (with the exception of Scotland). The handicap works against teams too as you have 12 teams bidding for the same player pools. Its understandable why so many buy no name SH imports.

To think this guy is partly responsible in helping English clubs worries me. He clearly has missed the point altogether.

I hope the HC Board laugh him out of the meeting or at the very least counter the argument with "Sure - as long as you will accept 3 places instead of 6".

This bloke is an idiot and his idea of improving English Rugby is to pull other (working systems) down, instead of improving his own.

roddersm wrote:http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12062_7451779,00.html

rodderrs,

read that (but lost the will to live before reading the comments) - can't see the relevance to this thread, any ckues?

Feckless Rogue wrote:The Telegraph and Sky sports articles posted by Gibson and rodders are very interesting. Looks like the British media isn't buying McCafferys excuses or solutions any more than we are.

Cleary in the Telegraph is completely correct in saying that Treviso add more to the tournament than the likes of Worcester or Exeter would. He's also right that if only the top 8 Celtic teams qualified for the HEC, Italian participation would likely be extinguished within 5 years and the growth of rugby in that country stunted, in order to let the weaker French and English teams in.

Barnes is also right about the the former masters, England, needing to stop the excuses and become the pupils. Particularly in attack and at the breakdown. Some English posters have recognized and acknowledged this already. Some still have their eyes closed and simply demand less Pro 12 teams in the tournament.

When will the penny drop?

By the way I don't think relegation is a problem at all, with regard to English performances in Europe. Just adds a bit of excitement to the bottom.

I've read Cleary's article about a million times and I can find no mention of Worcester or Exeter. Nor would I expect to, as both these teams have done more to damage to the evil cartel of PRL than any others. Why do you mention them?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

roddersm wrote:http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12062_7451779,00.html

rodderrs,

read that (but lost the will to live before reading the comments) - can't see the relevance to this thread, any ckues?

Still refusing to see? OK, the title of the thread is "Mark McCafferty is a disgrace", with regard to Mark McCafferty's public comments that there should be 2 more English teams in the HEC, and there should be 2 less places given to Pro 12 teams, and and top of that the Pro 12 qualification should be based on league position regardless of whether this results in a nation or two getting no representation at all. He wants this because he believes the Pro 12 qualification structure is the reason that English teams performed poorly in the competition.

The relevance of the Barnes article is that he clearly and correctly points out that Pro 12 qualification rules have nothing to do with how poorly English teams performed in Europe. The real reasons for English teams performing badly in Europe are that the Celtic teams attack better, giving Edinburgh's offloading game as an example. And the Celtic teams (particularly the Irish) are far smarter and more effective at the breakdown. They've also caught up with the English in terms of forward power. So English defences that can handle the slow ponderous attacks of AP rugby, can't handle the step up when facing Celtic teams attacking games.

In pointing out the real reasons for the poor performance of English teams, he shows McCaffertys claims that it's all down to qualification rules in a separate league, are nonsense. And he'd better open his eyes and realize that, so English teams can get on with trying to match or beat the style that the Celtic teams are bringing. That's why it's relevant.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:I've read Cleary's article about a million times and I can find no mention of Worcester or Exeter. Nor would I expect to, as both these teams have done more to damage to the evil cartel of PRL than any others. Why do you mention them?

Hmmm. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Cleary is making the point that Treviso are a valuable addition to the Heineken European Cup. He says in his article that

In brief, the Premiership bosses want a bigger representation

Now a bigger representation for England would mean more of the weaker English sides in the tournament. I gave Exeter and Worcester as examples of weaker English sides, off the top of my head. I've just looked at last years AP table and the two extra AP sides would have been Exeter and Wasps. So I'll correct myself. To be strictly accurate based on last years table, I should have said Exeter and Wasps, instead of Exeter and Worcester. And the reason I mention them is because they would be the 2 extra teams this year if McCaffertys plan was in place.

HammerofThunor wrote:My biggest bugbear from the PRL is the smoothing payments for the EPS players. Not sure if you already know all this but...

The RFU directly pay the relevant club for any players in the EPS. This is to compensate for the additional time lost to the club, allowing them to bring in cover (something like an additional 7 games missed on top of international window).

However the PRL were concerned that this would encourage some clubs to buy up all the English players and get money back for them. So they agreed (unanimously apparently) to smooth out these payments by uneven distributed TV and sponsorship money (the RFU has no control over these).

This makes sense if it only needs a majority and by definition more than half will almost always make more money this way (they can't all have above average number of players missing). What effect this has had is that clubs like Leicester or Northampton (or now Saracens) who contribute above average (3 or more players) lose money. Effectively it discourages having EPS squad members in the squad. To compound this issue they don't get any salary cap compensation so that they have players missing for more of the season and therefore need more cover but with the say budget.

It's going to be really interesting to see what happens in the next round of negotiations (deal runs out after 2015 world cup I think)


On a side note, the issue with relegation isn't actually relegation. It's promotion. That's what needs to be kept from our point of view. There's nothing special about the current top clubs other than they happen to be top at the moment. All the championship clubs are aiming to develop their club so that they can gain promotion to the premiership and stay there (just look at Exeter). Relegation is a necessary byproduct of that. IMO

That does seem like a flawed system, is the salary cap a RFU measure or a PRL measure? The current system does seem likely to punish the more successful clubs.

I know the issue mainly covered in this topic has been about the qualification process and various methods, but I was re-reading the interview with McCafferty and read the last couple of paragraphs again. It states:

"McCafferty also highlighted what he sees as the Irish sides' ability to prioritise the Heineken Cup over domestic matters. "The real change over the past four or five years," McCafferty added, "is that the Irish sides have become more successful in Europe because of the priority they have put on it.

"After round four of this season's tournament I looked at the starting line-ups of Ulster, Leinster and Munster [all through to the quarter-finals] and only four of the 45 starters in the Heineken Cup were retained for their PRO12 league games the next weekend. Take a model where the top eight clubs qualify from each league and they wouldn't be able to take as many risks. That's the issue our clubs have."

The more I read this, I wondered could his tallies be correct? If I understand it correctly, he's saying that after Round Four of the HC (17 Dec), only four players from the 45 that started that weekend, were retained for their Pro12 league games the next weekend (26 Dec).

4 from 45? Maybe he meant 4 from each team, in other words 12 from 45.

So I went and checked. Just Leinster's line-ups for matches ranging from 12 Nov (Round 1 HC) to 1st Jan. This period covered 4 HC matches and 4 P12 matches.

Leinster named/used 36 players from their squad in that period. 7 of them either got one start and/or one or two bench spots. The other 29 were used across the 8 matches - some more than others.


Taking McCafferty's supposed tally of 4 from 45 for all three teams, just for Leinster there were:
6 players from their HC game against Bath that played the following weekend against Ulster in the P12.
2 who started against Bath were used as replacements against Ulster.
4 Replacements against Bath started against Ulster.
2 Replacements against Bath were Replacements against Ulster.

There were 7 Leinster players from the HC match who were not involved the following weekend in the P12 match.

In case, McCafferty had missed out on the Ulster match, I looked at the following week's P12 match on New Year's Day against Connacht but there were 5 players who started in that match who'd started against Bath.

So I decided to look at Bath's figures then.

After their first two rounds of H Cup in November, they played Worcester away on 26 Nov. Bath used 8 starting players to start in the AP match, compared to Leinster using 6.

8 players from Bath's HC match - most of them replacements - weren't in the AP squad for the following week at all.

By the next week's game against Sale, more squad players were drafted in to bring the total numbers to 34 for the four games. This game featured 10 starting players from their H Cup match. And 7 new ones who hadn't been involved at all.

The following two weekends, they had their H Cup matches against Leinster. 8 players returned to the starting line-up and bench for this match. Only 3 players had played all 6 matches up to that point - Classens, Caldwell and Taylor.

The last game of the year, comparable to the weekend in McCafferty's example, saw Bath take on Northampton at Franklin Gardens. 12 starting players from the H Cup match started the following week against the Saints with the remainder acting as replacements. This compares to only 6 from Leinster in their match, plus a further 8 players involved in both matches as starters/replacements.

By the following week against London Irish, this had reduced to 8 same starting players from Bath's H Cup squad.

Interestingly, they added more players to bring the overall squad number to 38 for the period, 2 more than Leinster.

So AP clubs do rotate their squads after Heineken weekends as evidenced by the first two matches, but that may have been because it was perceived weaker opposition in Worcester, compared to Saints and Irish. (Bath lost the match anyway.)

And a club like Leinster can afford to rest more of its players, whether that is because of a better quality squad overall, or less intensity/"risk" in the P12, others can argue about. However, McCafferty's figures seem to be off the wall with his 4 from 45 example.

One other final point, I also looked at the squads for their LV cup matches, and saw that they contained a fair contingent of first team players such as Abendanon, Cuthbert, Hipkiss, Banahan, etc. Why they would impose this additional burden on players with heavy schedules just seems ludicrous.

Feckless,
fair enough on McCafferty, I'd assumed that the point had already been well and truly made.

Regarding Woos and Exe (and Wasps), that's your opinion, not Cleary's - fine. I hope that Exe, in particular, will earn themselves the opportunity to prove to you that they are at least as equal to Treviso, if not in scenery and Kirwan's residence, then in rugby ability and enthusiasm. To put it into the context of the article, which lauded Treviso's losing effort at home against Sarries, Exe were the only team to beat Sarries at their home in the AP last season.

Pot Hale,
you've blinded me with stats there, but if you're saying that McCafferty was being a bit naughty when he quoted 4 from 45, then I agree. He picked on a time when all teams, Pro12 and AP, were having to rotate due to the stupid fixture schedule.

Without wishing to appear an apologist for Barf, they have had considerable injury problems for much of the season, culminating with selecting a match day squad from only 24 fit players for HC round 4.

I assume McCafferty is just doing some posturing in advance of any negotiations that might be coming up. Like when your selling a car and you say you want to sell for 4 grand but you secretly know you'd take 3.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Pot Hale,
you've blinded me with stats there, but if you're saying that McCafferty was being a bit naughty when he quoted 4 from 45, then I agree. He picked on a time when all teams, Pro12 and AP, were having to rotate due to the stupid fixture schedule.

Without wishing to appear an apologist for Barf, they have had considerable injury problems for much of the season, culminating with selecting a match day squad from only 24 players for HC round 4.

Apologies for the stats vomitous, W. It wasn't a case of McCafferty being naughty, he's just plain wrong. Even allowing for the schedule contortions, saying that Leinster, Munster and Ulster only re-used 4 players in total for the following week, doesn't make sense, since Leinster alone used 6 players (I don't know what they are for Ulster and Munster). It's a pity someone like Ackford didn't do his homework rather than just accept this "naughty" statistic from someone with so clear a agenda.

It would be worth looking at the figures over a complete season - or certainly around the H Cup periods - to see whether this claim of massively resting/rotating by the Irish provincial sides really does stand up, or is as large as McCafferty makes it out to be. It sounds somewhat exaggerated to me given what I've looked at so far.

If you're saying that Bath's injury problems led them to selecting the same players more than they normally would, this adds to the impression of disingenuousness and exaggeration. But it is a central plank in his argument as to why there should be a top 8 fight for places.

It's a notion that I'm not completely averse to as a greater internal competitiveness to the Pro 12 would be a good thing. A restructure might see Pro 12 and Top 14 with top 7 places, and the AP with top 6. 2 places reserved for the previous year's cup winners, and the remaining 2 spots to be competed for by any country/union rather than simply handed on to the England and France clubs. For example, 3 P12, 2 AP and 3 T14 teams such as Aironi, Dragons, Connacht, Scarlets, Glasgow, Exeter, Wasps and whichever French clubs would go into a draw to play two pre-qualifying matches for the remaining two spots.

Nobody is really disputing who are the top dogs in their respective leagues, it's more a case of "our lower-ranked teams are better than your lower-ranked teams" so we want more spots for them. So let them duke it out and decide it that way.

Red Right, the cap is a PRL thing. Or at least they have day to day control (don't know if the RFU demand one and authorise it).

The whole purpose of the salary cap is to weaken the top teams. There's the worry that a handful of successful clubs will buy up all the good English players (or buy in better foreign players) and result in a football style league where the top few clubs are generally untouchable by the rest (unless a Man C happens). It's an understandable fear and one that is taken up by the Regions and the French clubs (or have they scrapped it again).

Most Leicester fans want the cap tied to turnover so that clubs can put in too much money they don't really have. But then would. In that case Leicester and Northampton would probably do better out of it than most. Quins and Gloucester are close to it I would expect.

There are new rules coming in next year. A signing players salary will exist outside the salary cap, allowing a star player to be brought in. E.g. all of Nick Evans' salary will be on top of the cap so Quins could spend an extra however much on squad players (ideally a tighthead!). Also the rules regarding academy players are changing (at the moment clubs are screwed if they play academy players too much)

Pot Hale, don't draw attention to how we line up our players over Heineken Cup pool stages. Let them look at the game afterwards and complain, let them. He didn't look at the Pro12 game prior to HC rounds 3 & 4, when plenty of clubs rest some players ahead of the 'big' games. We know better , you just have to look at the fixture. It is not as if we try to get similar preparation prior to QF games into the Pro12 fixture list.

As I have shown elsewhere Leicester rested forwards as much as Ulster in the three games prior to the 41-7 hammering at Ravenhill

Don’t Leinster always play Munster the week before HC round 1 and the week before the HC QFs?

As I have shown elsewhere Leicester rested forwards as much as Ulster in the three games prior to the 41-7 hammering at Ravenhill .

Tigers had games on the 27th Dec, 1st Jan and 7th Jan. Three games in 11 days made it a necessity for players to be rested otherwise the drubbing at Ulster would have been worse. Not that resting players helped a great deal as Deacon, Manu and Flood all got longish term injuries (more than a month) over that period anyway. There was also injuries to Ayerza, Chuter, Deacon, Parling, Salvi and Skivington which meant they weren't so much rested as unavailable before/for the Ulster game.

I think the interesting thing here isn't whether he's right or wrong. Rther it's that the English clubs, who bring much of the money to the table, appear to feel that the PRO12 qualifying system leaves sides (probably particularly Irish sides) at an advantage. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but it's not good news to have one of the most important sources of funding upset. Weren't their rumours recently of the English, French and South Africans setting up a club competition? Like some others I see this as setting out a negotiating position.

As for what's wrong with English rugby: partly I feel it's an issue with the coaching (and possibly refereeing interpretations) and perhaps some of the bigger clubs will need to invest more money on that side of things. I'd imagine coaching will catch up though - there's an international market and loads of analysis available now.

Secondly English rugby just needs time: time for the academy players to gain experience and time for more of them to work their way through the system so that they form the core of most AP squads. The academies were set up in 2001, but I'd say the higher quality outputs started appearing about 2008. Now there are loads of young players getting regular game time (for instance at Wasps Daly, Jones and Wade), they just need to gain experience and for another two or three years worth of the technically superior players to graduate to the first team squads.

Tied in with improved coaching and tactics at club level and all should be well. But it's not all doom and gloom even now: Sarries, Gloucester and Quins should all be very competitive next season.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

As I have shown elsewhere Leicester rested forwards as much as Ulster in the three games prior to the 41-7 hammering at Ravenhill .

Tigers had games on the 27th Dec, 1st Jan and 7th Jan. Three games in 11 days made it a necessity for players to be rested otherwise the drubbing at Ulster would have been worse. Not that resting players helped a great deal as Deacon, Manu and Flood all got longish term injuries (more than a month) over that period anyway. There was also injuries to Ayerza, Chuter, Deacon, Parling, Salvi and Skivington which meant they weren't so much rested as unavailable before/for the Ulster game.

Ulster had games on the 26th Dcc, 30th Dec and 6th Jan i.e the same situation.
Ulster had injuries as well.

Bottom line when it came to the game both sets of forwards had played virtually identical game time between the 4th and 5th rounds.

Bottom line when it came to the game both sets of forwards had played virtually identical game time between the 4th and 5th rounds.

I was trying to point out that it isn't the norm for Tigers to rotate that much and many other AP teams rotate less. If you think that I was looking for excuses for the game at Ravenhill I really wasn't (because there were none). Tigers would certainly not get away with putting out an academy team for an away league game (that's saved for the Low Value Cup) but they might swap round the tightheads and a lock or backrower.

Its not the norm for Ulster either.
The Leinster game was very much a one off caused by a crazy fixture list.

So we all agree McCafferty is talking out of his arse?

It depends on what you think he was saying. I think he was saying the English clubs are starting to feel hard done by (rightly or wrongly), and as such I think he's signalling that change may be coming.

I like the HC as it is, and there are things English rugby can do for itself before forcing change, but I think the performance of English clubs in next year's tournament will be important to what happens next. Two or 3 QFists, and maybe a result away to one of the big three Provinces and I think things will settle down again.

"Forcing change"?

And what happens to us? - I mean Pro12 sides, if there is a big resurgence in English dominance and you get your 3 Quarter finalists next year, and maybe one Semi finalist that goes on into the final and actually wins it?


Where does that leave the Pro12?
Feeling sorry for themselves?
Feeling their house of cards has been blown down?
Feeling cheated?
Feeling they are still really better but that it was just a freak year for the English sides?
Feeling they need to tell the world that the English sides aren't really better but profiteering because something has changed dramatically. Someone somewhere is buying victory and they (the Pro12 sides) smell a rat and are being hard done by?

Maybe we'll just say we want a meeting with the top three Leagues and six Unions to thrash out a fairer deal for Pro12 sides?

It won't go away - this notion that when English or French sides are winning, all is right with the world. During such periods the 'others' will obviously moan but it's apparent they just aren't strong enough to cope, bless their poor misguided souls.
But when the 'others' are winning, something is totally just not right in the structure of, the bias shown to, the favours done for, the suspicious run of good luck by the 'others'.

It's a continuation of the old theme that existed for so long in International. We have bigger numbers therefore, naturally, we should be better; if we're not, something is wrong with the structure. The All Blacks continuously show how wrong that theory is.

SecretFly wrote:It won't go away - this notion that when English or French sides are winning, all is right with the world. During such periods the 'others' will obviously moan but it's apparent they just aren't strong enough to cope, bless their poor misguided souls.
But when the 'others' are winning, something is totally just not right in the structure of, the bias shown to, the favours done for, the suspicious run of good luck by the 'others'.

Finally someone sees the truth

It's a continuation of the old theme that existed for so long in International. We have bigger numbers therefore, naturally, we should be better; if we're not, something is wrong with the structure. The All Blacks continuously show how wrong that theory is.

You mean the line that's pulled out on here when certain people want to discredit England? The old, you may have the best overall record but with 1.5675 billion English players you should be the best in the World all the time.

Where does it leave the PRO12? Not in a terribly different position from today. If in 2 or 3 years time the English and the French have started to really dominate then there would be calls for change too.

You may not agree, but for me all of this 'MaCatherty is just wrong' stuff misses the point. McCatherty wouldn't have spoken without the clubs' backing. The AP sides are really motivated by money which is currently in part supplied by the HC, but there are voices in English rugby who want to go another way entirely.

Having a high quality competition is nice, but I think to be a successful competition you need all of the entrants feeling reasonably happy, and there are signs the English clubs aren't. If the French sides all exit at the QFs then I don't think that would be great news either. I think there is a fair chance things can be resolved without any major changes, but I think it's niaive to think that the English clubs being upset couldn't lead to trouble down the line, whether the AP sides are in the right or not.

Therefore I think it is in everyone's long term interests if the AP sides do better next season because, even if it is a blip, it will take the heat out of the debate for a couple of years and give the AP sides time to put right some of the things that are wrong.

We will see.

HammerofThunor wrote:

It's a continuation of the old theme that existed for so long in International. We have bigger numbers therefore, naturally, we should be better; if we're not, something is wrong with the structure. The All Blacks continuously show how wrong that theory is.

You mean the line that's pulled out on here when certain people want to discredit England? The old, you may have the best overall record but with 1.5675 billion English players you should be the best in the World all the time.

Sometimes it's used as a stick to beat you with Thunor - sometimes it's a soother the English use to ease the pain of loss. "There's no reason why we're losing, we have bigger numbers. Therefore it isn't players, it's structure"
I've seen it used by the 'others' yes - and I've seen it used by the Englsih themselves. Besides, you agree with my reading of that one by agreeing with my reading of the point above it. McCafferty was as blunt as a guy could get. Irish sides are winning not because they are better but because the structures suit them more. Disrespectful of his opponents AND the competition itself.

HammerofThunor - thanks for the crash course on on the PRL - it actually clarifies an awful lot with regard to McCafferty's position and does change my view on where he is coming from.

McCafferty's primary role is to look after the interests of the AP clubs. To expand on this, his role is to ensure that the AP clubs - from a business perspective - operate in an evironment that is as advantageous to them as they can possibly make it. Based on this I can see where he is coming from and why he said it. (His role has nothing to do with the devlopment of rugby or rugby matters outside of the AP).

The ERC was set up to expose clubs from different Unions to each other, in turn raising the standard in the lesser Unions (funnily it was set up because the Irish were crap) and and growing the appeal of rugby union across europe. This was the mission of all the Unions involved in setting up the ERC backed by the IRB.

Based on the last 4 pages, a lot of people (including me) have completely mixed up the positions of McCafferty and the ERC. My blood boiled because I believed that McCafferty's views were that of the RFU, had this been an RFU there was potential for this to be a real issue.

The reality is, McCafferty's role is to promote the AP when its going good and to protect it when it's going through hard times. Given that the media were starting to get on the back of the AP over HC results, he would not be doing his job if he did not try to divert some heat elsewhere - also, if he were to criticise the AP, I'm sure his job would be advertised on a national newspaper before the week is out.

The ERC, on the other hand, was set up to develop unions, improve standards and grow support for rugby union around europe through annual competion between clubs of different unions.

I think that the HC has grown at a rate that has surprised both the Unions and the leagues. This has created friction between those trying to run business' and those trying to develop the game.

So people need to see where the AP (the french league, if the set up is the same will have the same view as the AP) are coming from, they do need to protect their own product (they can't publicly criticse it themselves but one would imagine that there are talks behind the scenes to improve it).
To the same point people must remember what the ERC (emcompassing both the HC & Amlin) primary role is to develop rugby for a european wide audience, and not to develop closed elite competition.

DaveM wrote:Where does it leave the PRO12? Not in a terribly different position from today. If in 2 or 3 years time the English and the French have started to really dominate then there would be calls for change too.

You may not agree, but for me all of this 'MaCatherty is just wrong' stuff misses the point. McCatherty wouldn't have spoken without the clubs' backing. The AP sides are really motivated by money which is currently in part supplied by the HC, but there are voices in English rugby who want to go another way entirely.
.

Many people here might have said he's wrong. I'm on record somewhere above there above us saying he has a right to express his opinions about HC qualification. Every man has a right to express an opinion. And he's expressing his because it's his job. Good. he's done it. But also my point back then, when I said all that, was that he doesn't seem to realise or assume that Pro12 contributers (and that's four organisations, not one like in England) the four Pro12 organisation contributors will have their say too, IF talks about talks happen. They'll have their own demands and I'm sure their demands will have him gripping his collar nervously. Demands are one thing but they'll guaranteed go both ways.

And the outcome of the negotiation would depend on how strong both sides thought their positions were. My view is that some AP owners would rather play French and SA sides (remember, money is the driver for AP clubs). I hope this isn't a prevalent view though because I'd rather see English sides play the current HC teams.

DaveM wrote:
Therefore I think it is in everyone's long term interests if the AP sides do better next season because, even if it is a blip, it will take the heat out of the debate for a couple of years and give the AP sides time to put right some of the things that are wrong.

We will see.

That's again a threat. I know what you mean by it, and it's an administrative threat, and it happens in business. And everybody knows it's just business. Agreed. People aren't happy, revenues fall, people look for change. Fine.

My point - English sides had a purple patch in HC. One French side practically owns the competition on results. That has been before and that will probably come around again.

Or then again, it might not - perhaps Irish and Pro12 sides are just increasing in ability each year and are becoming simply better at the sport (small nations can do it as I've said about New Zealand) So maybe for quality sake, it's actually the English who have least to bargain with and less to threaten with.
If they're not happy? The HC would collapse? Well, in the format its in - yes, without a doubt. But who is to say sexy sponsors would land on the side of English rugby when new talks happen about a new sexy format for European rugby? Afterall, the images but bums on seats or watching Tv and that in turn generates the money.

So, given that Pro12 is proving that it's a faster, more SH version of rugby; the big money guns will be on English rugby's side? McCafferty would want to be thinking less of boardroom threats and more about the version of rugby people want to see... right now, French and Pro12 is the more exciting.

So yes, periods will come and go. When English sides are up, the others will moan. When others are up, English sides will moan. It's a cycle.

But I'm telling you now - Pro12 sides are at the moment the ones (kinda) on top - but we're still not happy. We still have problems with the HC. Namely England and France being guaranteed six places. Given HC performances in the last number of years, we think that's too many places. So you see, even when the winning league is happy, it still looks around and sees where changes might occur.

SecretFly wrote:
That's again a threat. I know what you mean by it, and it's an administrative threat, and it happens in business. And everybody knows it's just business. Agreed. People aren't happy, revenues fall, people look for change. Fine.

So, given that Pro12 is proving that it's a faster, more SH version of rugby; the big money guns will be on English rugby's side? McCafferty would want to be thinking less of boardroom threats and more about the version of rugby people want to see... right now, French and Pro12 is the more exciting.

It's a plausibe scenario. The AP clubs may choose to make the threat, I certainly can't.

And yes, the big money will be on the English side. 50m+ and growing population and all that. It's just business, and the quality of the rugby sadly isn't that important.

I don't think many English fans would want this, but there are real tensions in the English game. AP sides like Saints would like to take power from the RFU - and you can see how things could spin out of control in the way they have in other sports. Personally I like the current set up with the central funding of academies, the national team at the top of the pyramid, the improving quality of the HC etc, but not all the owners feel this way.

The h cup was never set up so that the best clubs in Europe could compete against each other. The point of the heineken cup was to allow every union involved the opportunity to compete in a high level competition. Otherwise the Italians wouldn't even have been included from the start.

So now some want to make it into the best out of 3 leagues playing each other. Fine and dandy so long as no one cares that rugby in Italy and Scotland would be damaged, maybe irrevocably by such a move. Or if no one cares that the pro 12 sides adapt a dull defense oriented style.

Yes the French and English could maybe go their own way and form a new lucrative competition where just they compete. These unions are the richest with the most fans so they could support this. This is the scary thing for me. The clubs in these countries have no interest in developing European rugby. They could do their own thing and screw everybody else. And I can't see how they could be stopped when it comes down to it.

There is no chance that England and France could agree on anything one or the other would want a bigger slice of the cake.
Neither will want to be seen as being the follower both will want to be in control.

There was I think already talk about SA clubs joining Celtic League at one point, I heard. Again, big money for England is real...but if European sponsors (and even British companies are European and even World in outlook) if they feel a better, more world friendly product is out there than the one English rugby is offering, they'll say business is business (no national loyalty) and tell them the world would prefer the Pro12 or French version of rugby.

England might say - "We're out then" And the answer could be "Ok - so you're out. We'll see if the SA, French and Pro12 crowd are interested."

That there is a big enough crowd even without the English (populationwise). McCafferty would just want to be careful with the hardball - all fans, and even a fair smattering of English ones, like attractive rugby. If that's the product available and English people still have televisions but have no participation in such a competition, they'd still tune in to watch it.

McCafferty should be very careful. Everybody knows how to hardball, and the product - the rugby that is best - is the biggest hardball argument for greedy sponsors and TV companies. English rugby could be left to its 50 million people to continue with their League on its own. Afterall, if Englsih rugby was so comfortable about its position as regards sponsorship and TV deals if wouldn't be complaining about the outside as it exists in HC competiton.

Since when sponsorship and tv renenues is directly linked to the so called "quality" of the competition? if that was the case, we in france would be watching S15 or Pro12 (as opposed to T14 and even pro D2). Strangely none of those competitions are shown (bar S15 playoffs I think) on TV.

So regardless of quality of the respective local competitions, the one that attract more "interest" from media, public and hence sponsors might not be the pro 12. Therefore the successful Pro12 teams are deservedly getting more benefits from the HC by getting an increased exposure (compared to say the average AP or T14 teams).
So implying that Pro12 teams are not happy about the HC because they should be getting more seems over the top.

as for myself, am overall happy with the current formula altough ultimately would be nice to have less teams in the HC (16 with 4 pools and first 2 to qualify so that we also get a more competitive challenge cup with better teams for every country (yes scotland...).
From a French perspective I'd rather see less teams in those cups but more competitive ones (say 4/5 in each) : I dont see the point of having teams coming from the 2nd division playing the ACC next year ... There is nothing interesting in putting 90 points to rovigo and then getting hammered by wasps because you are playing your 2nd choices.

Since when sponsorship and tv renenues is directly linked to the so called "quality" of the competition?

The idea being the higher the quality the more people watch, the more people watch the more people will be able to see the advertisements. TV Revenue is all linked to people paying to watch sport so companies will pay more money to the sports that guarentee the biggest following.

Hence quality = big support = lucrative sponsorship and tv revenue deals.

I've noticed that Leinster and Munster often get top billing on Sky. So they're teams that people want to watch, despite being from a small country with a small market themselves. They're big brands in rugby now that draw a big audience in England, when an English side faces them.

A team that draws a big audience is valuable, no matter what country it's from. So if there's any future revolution to a bigger, more elite more lucrative competition, I wouldn't be surprised if they were invited.

whocares wrote:Since when sponsorship and tv renenues is directly linked to the so called "quality" of the competition? if that was the case, we in france would be watching S15 or Pro12 (as opposed to T14 and even pro D2). Strangely none of those competitions are shown (bar S15 playoffs I think) on TV.

So regardless of quality of the respective local competitions, the one that attract more "interest" from media, public and hence sponsors might not be the pro 12. Therefore the successful Pro12 teams are deservedly getting more benefits from the HC by getting an increased exposure (compared to say the average AP or T14 teams).
So implying that Pro12 teams are not happy about the HC because they should be getting more seems over the top.

as for myself, am overall happy with the current formula altough ultimately would be nice to have less teams in the HC (16 with 4 pools and first 2 to qualify so that we also get a more competitive challenge cup with better teams for every country (yes scotland...).
From a French perspective I'd rather see less teams in those cups but more competitive ones (say 4/5 in each) : I dont see the point of having teams coming from the 2nd division playing the ACC next year ... There is nothing interesting in putting 90 points to rovigo and then getting hammered by wasps because you are playing your 2nd choices.

The 'quality' of your Internal competition is not even part of the argument. Why bring it up? So French people watch Top 14 instead of Super15? Now there's a surprise. Many millions of English people watch more of their AP than would ever choose to watch Pro12, or indeed Top14? Another surprise.

No surprise at all, either that they watch their leagues avidly or that the sponsors and TV companies are interested in being involved in those internal leagues.

The whole argument is about when the internal leagues (or ERC countries/Unions) want a Europe wide competition between clubs/regions/provinces. When they, as it were, go outside their League borders.

You seem to suggest AP and Top14 would and can demand more positions, bigger say in HC, etc because they have big internal leagues that their populations watch. I'm saying that when the talk gets to Europe, Pro12 have an equal say in both the history and in the success of the current European Club competition. Largest crowds, best games, most wins; whichever criteria you want, Pro12 are there or thereabouts with the French and English clubs.

So in a European context our thoughts and possible demands are NOT 'over the top.' We would have every right to demand a reduction in French and English numbers, every bit as much as McCafferty now suggests Italy, Scotland, Ireland and Wales should renounce their rights to automatic places. Every bit as much right to put forward our demands in that scenario. You can't see that?

Now, the product. Again, in a European context, it's difficult to see logic in fighting for more of a say in who gets into HC when the sides you represent are faltering whilst in it.

Why are they faltering? - Structure or 'quality'? Quality is what HC rugby is about. You can't bluff it at that stage because you meet sides from other leagues and you have to prove you are better. HC crowds like 'quality' - it's what makes HC more attractive than the respective leagues. It's why McCafferty wants a bigger slice of that pie. Good rugby, big crowds, nice earner.

Of course it's 'quality'. And right now, Pro12 have that as a bargaining chip.

Plus - you might feel a little let down in this regard but a large section of Welsh, Italian, Scottish and Irish rugby fans only ever get to see, or choose to see, French and English sides when and if they meet them in HC. So, if a sponsor attracts my attention when a French side is playing, the only reason it's capturing my attention is because there is an Irish side playing them. HC is the final arbiter in 'quality' and European wide interest.

that's true Sam
my point was that quality of the entertainment is one of the factors but not the only one though. rugby still remains a local market for sponsors so they would look at the local interest first (ie crowds) and local results seconds.

That's the theory, but the reality is:

Big population = lucrative sponsorship and tv revenue deals

Quality may slowly grow the numbers who actually attend, and TV may edge up but that's about it. Now a sponsor could gamble that many years of high quality rugby will eventually grow the market to the point where it offers a decent return, or it can go straight to a market that already exists.

I also can't see a league not featuring English clubs attracting much interest in England. End of the day there's no culture in England of watching other people's sporting events. The nearest I can think of is NFL, and that's never really broken through, or IPL cricket (though I can't think where that is shown). We'd rather watch the dross, because it's our dross.

If the English up and leave it will be because they are taking at least one of France and SA with them (possibly both), because that's where the money is. This would leave the HC as essentiually featuing the same sides as the PRO12. I think Intotouch has it pretty much spot on - the HC has higher motives and has succeeded, but there are clubs in England who think they can actually make money from rugby and they are involved in an ongoing battle with the RFU. It would be a shame if the RFU lost, and I worry any dispute over the HC could quickly get out of hand.

Red Right wrote:HammerofThunor - thanks for the crash course on on the PRL - it actually clarifies an awful lot with regard to McCafferty's position and does change my view on where he is coming from.

McCafferty's primary role is to look after the interests of the AP clubs. To expand on this, his role is to ensure that the AP clubs - from a business perspective - operate in an evironment that is as advantageous to them as they can possibly make it. Based on this I can see where he is coming from and why he said it. (His role has nothing to do with the devlopment of rugby or rugby matters outside of the AP).

The ERC was set up to expose clubs from different Unions to each other, in turn raising the standard in the lesser Unions (funnily it was set up because the Irish were crap) and and growing the appeal of rugby union across europe. This was the mission of all the Unions involved in setting up the ERC backed by the IRB.

Based on the last 4 pages, a lot of people (including me) have completely mixed up the positions of McCafferty and the ERC. My blood boiled because I believed that McCafferty's views were that of the RFU, had this been an RFU there was potential for this to be a real issue.

The reality is, McCafferty's role is to promote the AP when its going good and to protect it when it's going through hard times. Given that the media were starting to get on the back of the AP over HC results, he would not be doing his job if he did not try to divert some heat elsewhere - also, if he were to criticise the AP, I'm sure his job would be advertised on a national newspaper before the week is out.

The ERC, on the other hand, was set up to develop unions, improve standards and grow support for rugby union around europe through annual competion between clubs of different unions.

I think that the HC has grown at a rate that has surprised both the Unions and the leagues. This has created friction between those trying to run business' and those trying to develop the game.

So people need to see where the AP (the french league, if the set up is the same will have the same view as the AP) are coming from, they do need to protect their own product (they can't publicly criticse it themselves but one would imagine that there are talks behind the scenes to improve it).
To the same point people must remember what the ERC (emcompassing both the HC & Amlin) primary role is to develop rugby for a european wide audience, and not to develop closed elite competition.

So are we saying this is acceptable because its in the remit of his job? Surely keeping quiet on this until he actually meets the Board would have been a better rather than lay blame elsewhere. The reality is at the moment English Club Rugby is generally not good enough at the highest level. That's not a critisicm, us Welsh are not good enough either. But this whole laying blame on someone else's doorstep in my opinion is poor behaviour. I was brought up to accept responsibilty and laying blame elsewhere has never brought productive results. Now for someone who is hired to represent the Clubs in the best possible light he has not done himself any favours.

My point is this - the failings of English sides in the HC lies with them. No one else.

SecretFly wrote:You seem to suggest AP and Top14 would and can demand more positions, bigger say in HC, etc because they have big internal leagues that their populations watch. I'm saying that when the talk gets to Europe, Pro12 have an equal say in both the history and in the success of the current European Club competition. Largest crowds, best games, most wins; whichever criteria you want, Pro12 are there or thereabouts with the French and English clubs.

So in a European context our thoughts and possible demands are NOT 'over the top.' We would have every right to demand a reduction in French and English numbers, every bit as much as McCafferty now suggests Italy, Scotland, Ireland and Wales should renounce their rights to automatic places. Every bit as much right to put forward our demands in that scenario. You can't see that?

Now, the product. Again, in a European context, it's difficult to see logic in fighting for more of a say in who gets into HC when the sides you represent are faltering whilst in it.

Why are they faltering? - Structure or 'quality'? Quality is what HC rugby is about. You can't bluff it at that stage because you meet sides from other leagues and you have to prove you are better. HC crowds like 'quality' - it's what makes HC more attractive than the respective leagues. It's why McCafferty wants a bigger slice of that pie. Good rugby, big crowds, nice earner.

Of course it's 'quality'. And right now, Pro12 have that as a bargaining chip.

Plus - you might feel a little let down in this regard but a large section of Welsh, Italian, Scottish and Irish rugby fans only ever get to see, or choose to see, French and English sides when and if they meet them in HC. So, if a sponsor attracts my attention when a French side is playing, the only reason it's capturing my attention is because there is an Irish side playing them. HC is the final arbiter in 'quality' and European wide interest.

I never suggested that english or french should get more - in fact (see my previous post) am quite happy with the current system. although nothing is perfect, the status quo works. dont see why french or english should get more ,nor I see why we should have another or 2 pro 12 teams playing there. besides if pro12 quality sides do attract big crowds away they do get half of the ticket revenues.

SecretFly wrote:Quality is what HC rugby is about.

I thought it was about development. I'm afraid I'm just too stupid to keep up.

Welshmushroom wrote:
So are we saying this is acceptable because its in the remit of his job? Surely keeping quiet on this until he actually meets the Board would have been a better rather than lay blame elsewhere. The reality is at the moment English Club Rugby is generally not good enough at the highest level. That's not a critisicm, us Welsh are not good enough either. But this whole laying blame on someone else's doorstep in my opinion is poor behaviour. I was brought up to accept responsibilty and laying blame elsewhere has never brought productive results. Now for someone who is hired to represent the Clubs in the best possible light he has not done himself any favours.

My point is this - the failings of English sides in the HC lies with them. No one else.

Knowing what his job is - and why he's there, I accept why he is saying what he is. At the end of the season he will have negotiations with the branding people in Aviva, the sales people at Sky as well as numerous other sponsers and business partners. Aviva will be asking why the were sold the best league in the world when in fact, results in europe would show that they are lagging behind their competitors. The only card he can play, from a business perspective, is to say that the opposition have an unfair advantage but that they are lobbying for change externally whilst making improvements within their own organisation. (He's unlikely to say "Oh yeah, what we said when you signed up - we're not really that good after all")

I don't think what he says is right but I know why he said it. The AP will have to fix itself, I alluded to this in another post, its not the job of the Rabo to fix its shortcomings.

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Quality is what HC rugby is about.

I thought it was about development. I'm afraid I'm just too stupid to keep up.

You'll never read 'development' in any of my posts. Not interested in development. I'm interested in developing 'quality', if that counts?

I'm interested in Irish provinces doing well and in turn (most important bit for me) Irish International side improving in turn. I'm Irish, I think of Ireland. Never said any different. Irish provinces playing 'quality' rugby at the highest standard in Europe pleases me because it is not only success in itself but it has the potential to feed back to the International side.

That's me - selfish and no doubt about it.

Now, if you put my opinion onto an Englishman, a Welshman, a Frenchman, a Scotsman, an Italian - then you realise that in the end, if truthful, we all want regional/club success because it will also potentially help International. Therefore none of those nations are going to give up HC places so that some of the other nations can carry on improving their players in a more exclusive European club championship. Nobody shoots themselves in the foot. McCafferty seems to think some of them should.

Aren't there ERC negotiations at the end of the season? That's probably got more to do with this. A couple of years ago we had one team in the QF and Northampton got beat by Munster. Can't do worse this year.

SecretFly, I thought that was why the Italians were included and if it was based on position in the league then the Italians were lose out and would develop, blah, blah. I didn't mean to suggest that you had said that in your mind it was about development (although that's exactly what it looks like I did )

As far as I'm concerned, International rugby is a byproduct of the domestic rugby. If you have a good club system you should have a good international team (as long as you domestic system has a core of home qualified players). But I don't want to sideline the domestic competition in anyway for the advancement of the international side. But I can accept that and won't whinge about it (I'll keep that inside as the reason for England losing to Ireland.....AGAIN )

And that's from someone who isn't a strong supporter of any particular club. I don't think it's that uncommon in proper club supporters.

I think McCatherty would happily shoot the Irish provinces in the foot though. Even if the PRO12 won't discuss the issue I doubt this will be the last of it.

The HC was a competition intended to improve the standard of rugby in various places and it has succeeded. The question is 'what next?'

Thunor, I'm more than happy to let the Italians have their two places in HC, and the Scottish theirs. I support them not out of pride in Pro12 but simply because yes, I like the idea that we all have a contribution to this great European event.

I wouldn't want English sides thrown out completely either. They belong in it as much as I think the French and Italians do.

But as regards development. That's then up to Italy and Scotland. That's their lookout. I'd want Irish sides beating them 100% of the time if they could. The Pro12 in my book is a good 'competitive' competition - getting more competitive each year! Really is. But if Irish sides can keep Italian and Scottish and for that matter Welsh ones pinned to the bottom of it - I won't complain

But that's League rugby between nations. That's the competitiveness of it. Leinster don't want to loose to any of these guys - ever. So the league is not a joke.... it's damn serious.And despite the accusation from English observers, Leinster and other Irish sides do take the Pro12 seriously. If we don't, we get beat..

DaveM wrote:I think McCatherty would happily shoot the Irish provinces in the foot though. Even if the PRO12 won't discuss the issue I doubt this will be the last of it.

The HC was a competition intended to improve the standard of rugby in various places and it has succeeded. The question is 'what next?'

Kick it back to the stone age in various places? Because that's what McCafferty wouldn't mind either. So in one sense, he feels his league has been involved in creating a few European monsters that are now chewing up his domestic league and wants to kill them off. I think he a little paranoid, a little impatient and again, sorry, a lot arrogant to think that some of the unions that created HC in the first place would then committ suicide.

And if you get beat, what happens? Leicester may not be in the HC next season - that sort of thing matters.

I'd love to be in the room when the Heineken marketing manager explains to the CEO that the English have been 'thrown out' and that as a consequence a huge part of the market they were aiming at has just disappeared. "But the rugby is still very good, I can assure you of that".

The English can't be thrown out - they were one of the 'unions - International unions - that set it (HC) up. They are part owners. Heineken marketting man can't talk to the English seperately and put pressure on them alone or 'throw them out'.

But I hope it's becoming clearer - neither can English clubs or even one of the creators of HC (RFU) call up the Italians or the Scottish or the Irish or the Welsh and say the RFU and League clubs have come to a conclusion - you'll have to accept less HC numbers and no guarantee that your side will be one of them. Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales are part owners. And if you include the French that means that one 'League' has four part owners. The other two have one part owner each

Can't do it, any more than Heineken marketting manager can do it to English CEO.

Any idea how the shares are split? Is it even per 'union'? OR related to number of spots?