The expansion of International rugby - a pipe dream without any proper league structures?

Glass ceilings abound in World rugby.

So why should any country even consider developing their game as a realistic aspiration?

Portnoy, you are going to have to reason this through a bit more than just making a statement of glass ceilings mate.

If the pathway through to the six/four nations became automatic rather than by invitation, then the steep path of the level playing field would become surmountable.

e.g. a NH 2x4 nations progressional league would be feasible. With sides tested annually home and away.

And in the SH sides like any of the PIs and Japan could havea real chance to progress.

That's the glass ceiling.

Money perhaps?

Imagine if Scotland are relegated from the 6N - it would destroy Scottish Rugby.

chewed_mintie wrote:Money perhaps?

Imagine if Scotland are relegated from the 6N - it would destroy Scottish Rugby.

So they cut their cloth accordingly.

But no one country has the natural right to block the path of other aspirant nations.

A 4Ns Div 2 consisting of (say) Scotland, Italy, Georgia plus a.n.o. (Russia, Spain, Portugal, Romania etc.) scrapping it out [ed for a chance] to displace Wales/Ireland/England/France at the top table doesn't sound bad to me.

Rugby needs.

1. A global season. I'd move the northern one in line with the southern one.
2. An international salary cap. The French are inflating wage demands beyond what rugby can sustain and will bring financial ruin to the game.
3. A Europe wide super competition to replace the mishmash we have. You could have national conferences, or the three current leagues could be incorporated into it as conferences. A level playing field for all. Conferences ensure there are still local derbies every year.
4. Argentinian franchises in Super Rugby
5. Pacific island teams in Super Rugby.
6. With finances under control, there should be some system by which the tier one nations help give funding to the smaller teams. Specifically the Pacific Island teams. They give so much to rugby. They'd be a real asset and a big draw if they could sustain teams and keep their best players.
7. Either Pacific island nations or a combined Pacific Island Lions type team in the rugby championship.
8. Endeavour to set up Russian, Romanian, Georgian etc. franchises for the european super league thing.
9. An extra Italian and Scottish franchise too.
10. Fix the scrum mess
11. More tours, and test sides taking on domestic teams like the old days.
12. The B&I Lions should tour Argentina.
13. Endeavour to get more African sides like Namibia involved in regular pro competitions, maybe in South Africa?
14. Forget about wasting money on shiny new stadiums (ala Welsh regions) unless you can afford it.
15. Tier one nations should have their domestic sides made up of at least three quarters nationally qualified players. Don't go the way of soccer. Keep the home grown feel of domestic rugby.
16. Retain test rugby as the pinnacle. Don't let English and French club owners do to rugby what happened in soccer.
17. Hold the RWC in non-tier 1 nations regularly.
18. Setup a pro league in the USA and Canada. Promote the game there. They'd like it. It's one place in the world where it could be more popular than soccer.
19. Improve refereeing across the board. They HAVE to be more consistent in both hemisphere's. Use more officials if need be. Not sure if more are needed. That's another discussion. Just get the officiating right.
20. Always reward attacking rugby.

Feckless its a good list. A few points I'd have:

Firstly not on your list what do we do with Japan. They have serious talent in that league and a lot of cash.

9 - Extra Scottish and Italian teams are fine if they are supported

19 - At this stage I think its clear its not the refs. Its not one or two bad apples its in every competition worldwide. The whole laws need looking at.

20 - what do you mean by attacking. People forget that playing off the cuff running rugby is as one dimension as booting into the corners and playing with a very dominant pack at scrum/lineout. I would say rugby needs to ensure that you can play and win either way with the most effective being a mix of both.

Overall though some good points

1. A global season. I'd move the northern one in line with the southern one.

I agree, but I think moving the international season to August, September, October and November. That leaves enough time for each of the hemispheres to sort out their domestic and club season.

2. An international salary cap. The French are inflating wage demands beyond what rugby can sustain and will bring financial ruin to the game.

Will never happen.

3. A Europe wide super competition to replace the mishmash we have. You could have national conferences, or the three current leagues could be incorporated into it as conferences. A level playing field for all. Conferences ensure there are still local derbies every year.

Doubt that would ever happen, the clubs have too much power and the supporters are obsessed with their clubs.

4. Argentinian franchises in Super Rugby

It will happen, but finance will have to be planned.

5. Pacific island teams in Super Rugby.

Who is going to fund it?

6. With finances under control, there should be some system by which the tier one nations help give funding to the smaller teams. Specifically the Pacific Island teams. They give so much to rugby. They'd be a real asset and a big draw if they could sustain teams and keep their best players.

That is the IRB's job, they just need to put more focus on the lower tier teams.

7. Either Pacific island nations or a combined Pacific Island Lions type team in the rugby championship.

Can't see that combination happening again, although it will be good if the winner of the Pacific Nations cup qualifies for the Rugby Championship.

8. Endeavour to set up Russian, Romanian, Georgian etc. franchises for the european super league thing.

Don't know how you would do it, but if there is sponsors it could work.

9. An extra Italian and Scottish franchise too.

That is ambitious to say the least, I am pretty sure if there was enough resources (money and talent) it would have happened by now.

10. Fix the scrum mess

Bring back the engage for the feeding team.

11. More tours, and test sides taking on domestic teams like the old days.

If there is a 4 month international window, there is plenty of opportunity to do that, in fact I would suggest that the Six Nations and rugby championship is played bi annually.

12. The B&I Lions should tour Argentina.

Would be cool.

13. Endeavour to get more African sides like Namibia involved in regular pro competitions, maybe in South Africa?

already happening, not only them also Argentina is involved.

14. Forget about wasting money on shiny new stadiums (ala Welsh regions) unless you can afford it.

Tell that to the administrators of the sport.

15. Tier one nations should have their domestic sides made up of at least three quarters nationally qualified players. Don't go the way of soccer. Keep the home grown feel of domestic rugby.

I agree, in fact I would go so far as to say, no domestic club/province may have more than 3 players of foreign origin in their entre squad.

16. Retain test rugby as the pinnacle. Don't let English and French club owners do to rugby what happened in soccer.

True, but I think it is already, just look at the difference you get paid from broadcasters for a test vs a club match.

17. Hold the RWC in non-tier 1 nations regularly.

Will never happen, it is the cash cow.

18. Setup a pro league in the USA and Canada. Promote the game there. They'd like it. It's one place in the world where it could be more popular than soccer.

That's up to them.

19. Improve refereeing across the board. They HAVE to be more consistent in both hemisphere's. Use more officials if need be. Not sure if more are needed. That's another discussion. Just get the officiating right.

Referees aren;t the problem, the laws are.

20. Always reward attacking rugby.

How? The new points system experiment in SA had little impact on the results or manner in which teams scored points.

I think it will just evolve as it currently has - Italy and Argentina for example joining the 6N and 4N plus Italian teams joining the Pro 12.

Next steps, probably, are Argentinian teams joining the the Super 15, Lions tours of Argentina, Georgia joining the 6N, more Italian teams joining the Pro12, Pacific Islands teams to play in Super 15 (Funded by ?)

It will be evolution rather than revolution.

I can not see a two tier European Nations Cup as the financial impact on the relegated teams could send them into a tail spin. Also games against Portugal for example would be pointless. They remain the worst side to play at Ravenhill in the Professional era.

France and England simply could not cope with a year in the 2nd tier

Stag, I mean we have to avoid going back to the time when nearly all the teams were just kicking it aimlessly away because running with the ball was deemed to risky.

Good kicking, good scrummaging, good lineouts, good defence should all be rewarded too. A good kicking game can be an attacking weapon. Ireland once used a good kicking game combined with a strong lineout to starve teams of possession. The French kick+running game can be terrifying. But at ruck time, the team with possession should not be penalized for running the ball. Which effectively is what happened a few years ago. Thankfully it was fixed. I just want it to stay fixed, as the game evolves.

Too many points to debate FR. Some good and some bad.

A professional league will only exist if there is money coming into it. Rugby has been tried in the USA loads of times right back to when it lost out to American Football at Harvard. The American won't switch from AF to RU and that is it's market not soccer fans. Soccer exists because it is a global game and America have enough immigrants or from foreign lineage to know the game and support it - not so with rugby. So who will spend the money to make them competitive?
Putting salary caps on teams effectively takes money out of the game so there is bound to be less to go round resulting in fewer players being supported?

The RWC needs expanding and I'd spread it over more than one country.

I'd also relax the Test qualification rules.

I'd also relax the Test qualification rules.

sorry, aukster, I am not with you there, what do you mean?

You'd RELAX test qualifications rules? To what?

Feckless:

1. A global season. I'd move the northern one in line with the southern one.
No it doesn't. Rugby is a winter game and needs testing in all weathers. It's not a hard-ground fanvcy dance

2. An international salary cap. The French are inflating wage demands beyond what rugby can sustain and will bring financial ruin to the game.
Can't be done and managed successfully - see T14 wage (cough, ahem) wage caps

3. A Europe wide super competition to replace the mishmash we have. You could have national conferences, or the three current leagues could be incorporated into it as conferences. A level playing field for all. Conferences ensure there are still local derbies every year.
What mishmash are you talking of? And I have no idea how you intend to lever in another level of problems between franchises and leagues

4. Argentinian franchises in Super Rugby
Is just a distraction. Sort out the finance for a tri-continental league first

5. Pacific island teams in Super Rugby.
Why didn't the SANZU peoplele ever think of that? It beggars belief!

6. With finances under control, there should be some system by which the tier one nations help give funding to the smaller teams. Specifically the Pacific Island teams. They give so much to rugby. They'd be a real asset and a big draw if they could sustain teams and keep their best players.

If only...

7. Either Pacific island nations or a combined Pacific Island Lions type team in the rugby championship.

Making it a 5ns (aome/away) contest that's eight games for each country diacounting any international/domestic club disputes

8. Endeavour to set up Russian, Romanian, Georgian etc. franchises for the european super league thing.
Best build down from the Nation - Like Ireland have done

9. An extra Italian and Scottish franchise too.
Who'd watch? Who'd pay, Who'd care?
And which league would they play in (along with all the addtional Welsh, Italian (even an Irish midlands one that I've heard farted on about)?

10. Fix the scrum mess
OK. Just done that for you. urine easy that one

11. More tours, and test sides taking on domestic teams like the old days.
So you just reduced thedomestic leagues to what? Six?

12. The B&I Lions should tour Argentina.
Agree Entirely. On a 5-year rotational basis (you can't forget the PIs/Japan/Americas/ROW select XV in the loop)
Plus a SH/NH Super Lions tour once every four years...

13. Endeavour to get more African sides like Namibia involved in regular pro competitions, maybe in South Africa?
Now you are really running out of ideas

14. Forget about wasting money on shiny new stadiums (ala Welsh regions) unless you can afford it.
Yep. I've no problem there (unless you instruct them not to abandon their properties in the first place to go to god-forsaken hell-holes)

15. Tier one nations should have their domestic sides made up of at least three quarters nationally qualified players. Don't go the way of soccer. Keep the home grown feel of domestic rugby.
Agreed

16. Retain test rugby as the pinnacle. Don't let English and French club owners do to rugby what happened in soccer.
Agreed. And extend the sentiment it the IRFU

17. Hold the RWC in non-tier 1 nations regularly.
I'ts a matter of kerching

18. Setup a pro league in the USA and Canada. Promote the game there. They'd like it. It's one place in the world where it could be more popular than soccer.
That's on your to-do list. Activate it pronto

19. Improve refereeing across the board. They HAVE to be more consistent in both hemisphere's. Use more officials if need be. Not sure if more are needed. That's another discussion. Just get the officiating right.
Expand - don't reduce refereeing panels - make them feel - like the bog-standard player, that they have to earn the right to ref the next game as impartially and correctly as the last(or vice-versa)

20. Always reward attacking rugby.
The bleedin' obvious saved 'til last

I just kind of vomited all those ideas into the textbox and pressed send without thinking. Any criticism or disagreement is probably warranted. But I just wanted to throw some of my half baked idea's out there.

Portnoy I'm really serious about my first point though. It would be better if the season was global. It rains in summer here too. There's even some frost and snow in Spring if that's what you're into. We would just avoid the frozen pitches and cancelled games of winter. And at the same time synchronize our season with the south.

One thing I assume most all already aware of is the fact Georgia has more full time professional teams than anyone else bar France and England in the NH.

Georgia is the next coutry to step up a grade.

geoff998rugby wrote:One thing I assume most all already aware of is the fact Georgia has more full time professional teams than anyone else bar France and England in the NH.

Georgia is the next coutry to step up a grade.

I didn't know that. What about my idea of Georgia fielding a regional franchise or two?

Here is what you do

For international sides you have quailifies for the world cup

the big 10 but out b sides

they play the other sides so
You could have Ireland A, Team from 6b, team from 6c and quilifing team

They play over the AIs in 6B place

There is no way that A one of the big boys would lose to are 3rd tier europe team rember Italy beat Russia well

You would have an african group and and American group and base place as at current.

That would help the lower teams and avoid the bit 10 losing money

I don't see why Georgia and Romania don't do a region league a few weeks before Amlin they are only across the Black sea that would help them in euro and also as country

The south other then africa has no easy fix due to big distance. Currie could have the Nabian national team like the Argie team

geoff998rugby wrote:One thing I assume most all already aware of is the fact Georgia has more full time professional teams than anyone else bar France and England in the NH.

Georgia is the next coutry to step up a grade.

Geoff. This is the nub of it. You can't satisfy all the calls for the domestic leagues and the International competitions to grow yet coexist in a 12-month cycle.

My only solution is that the only way that the pressures can be equalised is by some sort of universal promotion/relegation system.

Or alternatively the back-pressure from the aspirant sides/countries just deflates (like Romania did) and leaves the rest of us smug and content as big fish in a very small pool.

[ed] Which is the very reason that why I complained about the impossibly secure and unbreakable glass ceiling must be removed.

It doesn't exist in football and neither does it prevent countries like Croatia or any number of African countries from seeing a bit of sunlight.

The thing I don't get is Europe are the king makers.

There is not NH/SH there is Euro/rest

We have four top teams
3 Good teams it goes on
Spain, Portugal, Rominia, Russia, Germany, Ukrain

I Stay forget the rest not becasue we don't care but because there problems are so differnent

France and Wales couldn't be bothered to do B teams so I say you go for

So Six Nations B becomes Eng A, Ireland A, Scotland A, Italy A, Georgia, Rominia (top two from current 6NB)

If and only if the nation wins then they play the lowest 6N team. That gives Italy and Scotland two chances to beat them. It also gives the A teams a better competion and allows better fedding into the First team win will be good for England as they have some many player to sift through.

I am sure that after a few years Wales and France would want to join.

You make a rule that there can only be three A teams in 6Nb but give three years for most likely italy to be relegated and there and A teams Can't go lower then 6Nc

The net result would be

6N
France
Italy
England
Scotland
Wales
Ireland

6NB
England A
France A
Ireland A
Georgia
Rominia
Russia

6NC
Wales A
Scotland A
Italy A
Spain
Portugal
Germany

If a country wins they move up from C to B and if an A team wins C and a country loses B then the A team goes up in place of the lowest A team in B

This way you take the 6NB and create the needed buffer zone to make sure that Georgia aren't into the 6Ns and not ready. To get in they would have to beat England and France A teams and Wooden spoon teams if they do that they deserve to be there.

Europe has the potential to have to have 10 teams of PI stardard.
I possibly would invite Canada and possibly USA in but they would have to play games in Europe

Brendan wrote:
So Six Nations B becomes Eng A, Ireland A, Scotland A, Italy A, Georgia, Rominia (top two from current 6NB)

Thats a great idea in theory but the problem is that unless there is significant TV and Sponsorship money on offer then the tournament will end up costing the Unions involved money and running at a loss. That would make it unsubstainable.

The reason France and Wales don't have A teams is because they cost money to run.

I really can't see this happening.

If you want rugby to develope to a global sport then I think the main thing to do is reduce the amount of tours to the SH, and the amount of SH tours to the NH.

That way instead of the AIs and Summer Tours we could have AI tests based in the 6Ns countries with the lower teir nations touring, and in the summer we could have the 6Ns sides (most likely A sides) tour the lower teir sides (inc Canada/USA). And the SH sides could do the same with Namibia, Japan and the PI sides. Then once every four years we would meet up with the sides from the other hemisphere at the world cup. It seems to work well in football, which is a global sport.

The other advantage to doing something like that would be the star players may actually get a bit more rest time during the season too, which would hopefully reduce the amount of injuries

And maybe the World should be considered in RU terms not so much in NH/SH as Eastern/Western time zones. ?

roddersm wrote:

Brendan wrote:
So Six Nations B becomes Eng A, Ireland A, Scotland A, Italy A, Georgia, Rominia (top two from current 6NB)

Thats a great idea in theory but the problem is that unless there is significant TV and Sponsorship money on offer then the tournament will end up costing the Unions involved money and running at a loss. That would make it unsubstainable.

The reason France and Wales don't have A teams is because they cost money to run.

I really can't see this happening.

The thing is that A teams wouldn't have to be put in but I am sure that the existin four would do it.
You could also do it instead of the u20s.

As it is the 6Nb travel so noe extra cost for them and I'm sure that Eurosport or someone would take as would the local countries.
I think this would develop countries quicker so some ERC money could be put in it.

I think a Six Nations ABC package would get more then the current Six nations AB do.

Europe needs to go it alone that is the only way we can catch the Big 3

It is why Europe is top in most sports because we have more comdeditive teams in closer areas.

As has been stated Georgia and Russia have big aduiences as does Rominia they would view it as Rominia v France not France A beating them would mean lots and they would get out large crowds

You could also put in a thing that the Six nations own A and B and current B owns C
That way no one loses money

I definately think that more sure be made to bring SA into Europe and and we have the money to do it. That would stop NZ/Auz saying how can we travel so far.

If you look at Japan they are Aisan Champs and Pacific Champs. Nz did something simillir with the PI for years they won it each year so could justify not allowing them into the 3nations

Euro teams are of course better because they have more room for growth but the PIs are at their peak though no one wants to admit it Rugby is there sport they aren't going to find more players

Fielding regular A teams is not feasible for Ireland as the club game continues alongside the International game.

If players were lost to two International squads then Leinster, Munster and Ulster would give up something like 15 -20 players each.

Throw in 7/8 injurues and Ulster and maybe Munster couldn't field teams.
Take prop as an obvious position where youngsters couldn't be used.

A reasonable breakdown would be:
1 Prop with Ireland - Court
3 Props with 'A' team - Fitzpatrick, McAllister, Macklin
1 Injured - Afoa or Black

That leaves us with one prop Afoa or Black for a club game. Where do the other 3 come from ??

What I am saying is the club game would have to be radically restructed to accomodate regular 'A' games

Brendan wrote:

roddersm wrote:

Brendan wrote:
So Six Nations B becomes Eng A, Ireland A, Scotland A, Italy A, Georgia, Rominia (top two from current 6NB)

Thats a great idea in theory but the problem is that unless there is significant TV and Sponsorship money on offer then the tournament will end up costing the Unions involved money and running at a loss. That would make it unsubstainable.

The reason France and Wales don't have A teams is because they cost money to run.

I really can't see this happening.

The thing is that A teams wouldn't have to be put in but I am sure that the existin four would do it.
You could also do it instead of the u20s.

As it is the 6Nb travel so noe extra cost for them and I'm sure that Eurosport or someone would take as would the local countries.
I think this would develop countries quicker so some ERC money could be put in it.

I think a Six Nations ABC package would get more then the current Six nations AB do.

Europe needs to go it alone that is the only way we can catch the Big 3

It is why Europe is top in most sports because we have more comdeditive teams in closer areas.

As has been stated Georgia and Russia have big aduiences as does Rominia they would view it as Rominia v France not France A beating them would mean lots and they would get out large crowds

You could also put in a thing that the Six nations own A and B and current B owns C
That way no one loses money

But does not a seasonal Home/Away contest represent a better and fairer challenge.

And how good would a GS feel then after winning all six (H&A) in a four nations contest? (Div one or two).

Like I said you could do it with the u20s or scap the LV and have six nations free.

All you would need is 50 players as you only need 22 for each and a few replacements.

There are plenty of younger players who would do well at this level.

You could do it England and france u20s and Georgia, Romiania, Russia and Spain

Rest of the six nations u20s Portugal and germany

I think that would give more credance to player x being good enough. If you do well agaisnt Georgia you deserve you start.

North and Cutbert would have shown how good they were as would madigan. It would help Ireland move players through quicker

Six nations has to stay play once because that is the beauty of the slam you only get one shot

I think that if you had four teams there would be less variy

Brendan wrote:Like I said you could do it with the u20s or scap the LV and have six nations free.

All you would need is 50 players as you only need 22 for each and a few replacements.

There are plenty of younger players who would do well at this level.

You could do it England and france u20s and Georgia, Romiania, Russia and Spain

Rest of the six nations u20s Portugal and germany

I think that would give more credance to player x being good enough. If you do well agaisnt Georgia you deserve you start.

North and Cutbert would have shown how good they were as would madigan. It would help Ireland move players through quicker

No No No No No No NO.

Age structures are put in deliberately not only to produce talent - but also to reduce the risks of personal injuries.

Non-starter imo.

If there is an effort to bring in the peripheral European countries, should it start with the international sides or the domestic teams? From the Italian experience I'd say it might be better to get domestic franchises into a domestic European Cup first. Do it from the bottom up. Get the best Georigian/Russian etc. players concentrated into a couple of teams, sprinkled with foreign pro's. Like Ireland's provinces did in the early 00's. Get them playing at European domestic rugby first. Let them learn to play at those levels intensity and fitness.

As you've probably guessed, I'd like a pan European NFL style competition. The Georgians etc. could be awarded one franchise first and see how it goes. If they start to succeed you can think of adding a 2nd. If they fail or go bust, like Aironi seem to have, then at least European rugby tried to give them a chance. if they're not given chance they have no chance, do they.

I think they'd need at least two franchises up to HC level before it would be worth their while playing the big sides at international level.

We also have to stop looking at SH as one block SA is more NH in the way they play and time wise. Travel would be little difference they could play all away and then all home

Feckless Rogue wrote:If there is an effort to bring in the peripheral European countries, should it start with the international sides or the domestic teams? From the Italian experience I'd say it might be better to get domestic franchises into a domestic European Cup first. Do it from the bottom up. Get the best Georigian/Russian etc. players concentrated into a couple of teams, sprinkled with foreign pro's. Like Ireland's provinces did in the early 00's. Get them playing at European domestic rugby first. Let them learn to play at those levels intensity and fitness.

As you've probably guessed, I'd like a pan European NFL style competition. The Georgians etc. could be awarded one franchise first and see how it goes. If they start to succeed you can think of adding a 2nd. If they fail or go bust, like Aironi seem to have, then at least European rugby tried to give them a chance. if they're not given chance they have no chance, do they.

I think they'd need at least two franchises up to HC level before it would be worth their while playing the big sides at international level.

I can't understand why they don't have a black sea region cup the weeks before the Euro say two from each and play weeks before the two lots.

That way they would do better.

I think the problem with Russia and Georgia is more Political then people

If they did that then it would add more and possible end up become a league of 4 from each and being the Eastern Rabo. they have the players and if they could get back the other players they would be hard to beat and having 4 teams would be some strenght in depth.

Also the Russians and Georgians have the money men

Bet if the ERC said if you do this we will give you each one HC place in a 32 HC and say another one for the Amlin.

You can bet the money from that would get them going. If as part of that they Did the Six Nation ABC they would be at italy in ten years and could beat people if not watching out. of course italy would have improved as has been shown with treviso they are the team to avoid in pot four with Exeter dark horses for second if they get a wales and scotish or weak English/french team

Brendan wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:If there is an effort to bring in the peripheral European countries, should it start with the international sides or the domestic teams? From the Italian experience I'd say it might be better to get domestic franchises into a domestic European Cup first. Do it from the bottom up. Get the best Georigian/Russian etc. players concentrated into a couple of teams, sprinkled with foreign pro's. Like Ireland's provinces did in the early 00's. Get them playing at European domestic rugby first. Let them learn to play at those levels intensity and fitness.

As you've probably guessed, I'd like a pan European NFL style competition. The Georgians etc. could be awarded one franchise first and see how it goes. If they start to succeed you can think of adding a 2nd. If they fail or go bust, like Aironi seem to have, then at least European rugby tried to give them a chance. if they're not given chance they have no chance, do they.

I think they'd need at least two franchises up to HC level before it would be worth their while playing the big sides at international level.

I can't understand why they don't have a black sea region cup the weeks before the Euro say two from each and play weeks before the two lots.

That way they would do better.

I think the problem with Russia and Georgia is more Political then people

If they did that then it would add more and possible end up become a league of 4 from each and being the Eastern Rabo. they have the players and if they could get back the other players they would be hard to beat and having 4 teams would be some strenght in depth.

Also the Russians and Georgians have the money men

Are you suggesting in any way that dubious ex-Soviet oligarchs with even more suspicious ermmm 'families' would generally bee the sort to pick up on a minor, generally loss-making business?

Wait a minute - you might be on to something - have you seen that nice Tigers lady on Sky/ESPN banging on about laundering?

are we better doing this on a tread of its own of how to develop Euro rugby and come up with a poll for both Club and country.

As you said if it isn't done week in week out it does nothing and I think that by giving them the chance to progess Internationally will also help them as shown with Italy against the teams right above them.

Italy before they joined the Rabo were the Equal of Scots and PI but not before the 6N they won but not their equal

HC becomes

eight groups of 4

only winers go through so no extra games

8 English
8 French
All Rabo
1 each from the Black sea league

Final place is the Amlin Winner

Seeding would as is

ERC would make sure that the Black sea league could garentee funding for the teams for five years and TV money to the ERC

Once I was up I think they would have the players for atleast an 10 team league with the Georgians and Russians fighting it out for the extra one.

You would have to make sure that the top two teams were the best so they could compette but allow growth.

The competion would be extremem it would make the Interpros look like childs play and imagine leinster going to Tebilis in December against a scum lump kicking machine that would be some game and anything could happen

Brendan. There are loads of T2/3/4 competitions sanctioned by the IRB without you making them up on the hoof.

The point is that none of them - club or nation can gain automatic access to the level higher than their own glass ceiling.

Portnoy (or anyone else)– does the ERC oversee all club rugby in Europe or is there a european body like UEFA which sits above the national unions and administers the H Cup?

Its just the ERC mintie. There is a Euro rugby organisation called FIRA but it doesn't hold much power

chewed_mintie wrote:Portnoy (or anyone else)– does the ERC oversee all club rugby in Europe or is there a european body like UEFA which sits above the national unions and administers the H Cup?

I think (but only think) that the ERC has jurisdiction over all European club and national competitions like EUFA. But Domestic competitions are the preserve of home unions.

And don't ask me how the Rabo fits in - presumably also under the remit of the ERC.

I know that the Europe ad asia is the only places where there is chance for teams to move up.

The problem in Europe is the glass ceiling
problems for it are
1. No union ie Scotland and Italy want to lose out on one years six nations
2. Taking a year break won't be to bad but its the money that will kill them
3. They might never come back up - unlike in short term Italy B killed Russia so Italy would beat Georgia

By taking out the money problem for ten years and giving the A teams or under 20s/22s a real chanlange it would help to remove the glass ceiling.

All I am really proposing is to join up the Six Nations and the B six Nations so as to remove the ceiling.

If Scotland went donw one year they would be a pain when they came back up as they would be so deterined. In a one off Scotland wont lose.

I am sure you could get a good TV deal also to make i worth our while.

If Ireland beat the Maoris it would be big for us same with the B6N

Italy joined the Rabo with money. I am sure we could get the Black Sea league in on the same basis so noone loses

I think I will start a new topic just on europe but will have to be tomorrow

Will do finaces and all that that I can find

I have started a tread in the club section dealing with the Black sea issues. If I could jointly put it in two I would but I want to know the international prepective esp from outside the six nations