Aviva Premiership, Relegation and European competition

Right, just sounding out an idea - feel free to shoot it down in flames!

This season (and the last....and the one before that) a lot has been made of the fact that the English teams can't compete in Europe, because of the salary cap, and the fact every week its a dog fight to avoid relegation in the league, which the poncy celtic teams don't have to worry about (as the Rabo league isn't a real league.....despite the fact 3 of the semi finalists this year play in it.....) so can focus on the HC/AC

How about, to remove, a couple of these arguments, the AP introduces 2 things.

1. The top six teams who qualify for European competition are exempted from relegation for the next season. This has a number of benefits. They can target the european competitions whilst blooding academy players (yes! english academy players!) in league games without the spectre of relegation. This exemption only lasts for one year, so they still have to compete in the league to gain a top 6 place, otherwise they face the prospect of relegation.

2. A relegation play off is introduced at the time the Championship play off is started. This will involve the bottom 4 teams, ignoring those who are exempted from relegation due to the fact they qualified for europe the previous season. This ensures there are no dead rubbers. Relegation from the AP and promotion from the championship, which the english set up and fans appear to love, are still in place. The remaining 8 teams still have to battle it out for the championship title play off and to gain the top 6 places for next seasons european competition and exemption from relegation.

I think it's an elegant solution to a problem that exists in the english game. It allows promotion and relegation. It allows teams to focus on european competition. It enables teams to develop english qualified academy players.

Being welsh, I dont want this to happen as I think it is a format that could take the engllish to the top of the table.......and no, they arent already there!

It's so crazy it just might work!!!!

pharmachris wrote:Right, just sounding out an idea - feel free to shoot it down in flames!

This season (and the last....and the one before that) a lot has been made of the fact that the English teams can't compete in Europe, because of the salary cap, and the fact every week its a dog fight to avoid relegation in the league, which the poncy celtic teams don't have to worry about (as the Rabo league isn't a real league.....despite the fact 3 of the semi finalists this year play in it.....) so can focus on the HC/AC

How about, to remove, a couple of these arguments, the AP introduces 2 things.

1. The top six teams who qualify for European competition are exempted from relegation for the next season. This has a number of benefits. They can target the european competitions whilst blooding academy players (yes! english academy players!) in league games without the spectre of relegation. This exemption only lasts for one year, so they still have to compete in the league to gain a top 6 place, otherwise they face the prospect of relegation.

2. A relegation play off is introduced at the time the Championship play off is started. This will involve the bottom 4 teams, ignoring those who are exempted from relegation due to the fact they qualified for europe the previous season. This ensures there are no dead rubbers. Relegation from the AP and promotion from the championship, which the english set up and fans appear to love, are still in place. The remaining 8 teams still have to battle it out for the championship title play off and to gain the top 6 places for next seasons european competition and exemption from relegation.

I think it's an elegant solution to a problem that exists in the english game. It allows promotion and relegation. It allows teams to focus on european competition. It enables teams to develop english qualified academy players.

Being welsh, I dont want this to happen as I think it is a format that could take the engllish to the top of the table.......and no, they arent already there!

chris, interesting idea! Just to be clear, it would always be the top 6 teams that earn a European place, right? A potential problem with 2) would be that you end the regular season with teams 7-12 having concentrated entirely on Europe and hence have teams 3-6 battling it out for relegation - I can hear the squeals of horror already!

An alternative might be to have relegation decided every second year, and likewise entry to the Heino every other year on odd years to relegation?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote: chris, interesting idea! Just to be clear, it would always be the top 6 teams that earn a European place, right? A potential problem with 2) would be that you end the regular season with teams 7-12 having concentrated entirely on Europe and hence have teams 3-6 battling it out for relegation - I can hear the squeals of horror already!

There is that risk, but can you see the likes of Leicester, Sarries, Gloucester etc not wanting to finish as high as they could. Remember, to requalify for Europe the next season, 8 teams would still have to finish in the top 6 remaining places. So if they all just concentrated on Europe, 2 of them would be at real risk of failing to qualify and be one of 6 teams facing relegation the next season. I think this would give them a big enough incentive to play as well as possible.

You could possibly add factors such as additional RFU funding, tailored to reward finishing as high as possible........?

Just to be clear, Chris from "Wales".. the reason why English teams do not do well in Europe is because they are not good enough, currently.

Nothing to do with promotion / relegation at all... turn on the AP highlights and you will see what I mean..

ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz

Agree with that. But living in England, it's a topic that I hear about endlessly.....and I mean endlessly.....

I just want the english clubs to stop trotting out excuses. To get their best teams out, the clubs have to agree to some reorganisation, or they will never improve.

Not that the regions have set the world on fire this year.........The Blue's performance against Leinster was shameful

BoyneRFC wrote:Just to be clear, Chris from "Wales".. the reason why English teams do not do well in Europe is because they are not good enough, currently.

Nothing to do with promotion / relegation at all... turn on the AP highlights and you will see what I mean..

ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz

Turn on the Pro 12 highlights... turn off the tv/computer, smash it with a hammer and then throw it out of the window

There are a few points in there that suggest you don't actually know that much about English club rugby (and that the guys you speak to don't either). Your ideas seem convoluted and could result in several ridiculous situations (such as 6th placed team in the relegation playoffs).

The easiest way the remove the short term threat of relegation is the Super League system (as backed by Mark Evans the other day). Of course the bigger issue is qualification for HEC not relegation; and of course the fact most English fans actually care about their league and don't want their club to prioritise Europe to the detriment of league. And as Boyne says they aren't good enough at the moment to compete in HEC/both)

Not that the regions have set the world on fire this year

This year?

The problem I have with the proposal is that the problem with teams in the HC is not relegation it is getting back into the HC next year.

Look at Chelsea in England if they win the CL they get into the CL that is their ownly hope so they have put everything into it.

I think if the RFU (as they are the ones who pick the places) they should give all HC quarter finalist from their union a HC sport the next year as long as they didn't finish in say the bottom two. They also could do the same for any english team to get into the Amlin semis.
It is silly to think that the LV winner gets a spot.

Sarries have shown you can compete in both and saints last year showed you can be compeditive in both

Any idea how much the HC is worth to an English team compared to Amlin or League

Interesting ideas, but it isn't the threat of relegation that worries the Heineken Cup teams in England. The HC teams need to finish in the top 6 to qualify for the Heineken Cup, a task made harder by the fact that every team they play is seriously fighting for something (be it against relegation, to make the top 6 and Heineken Cup qualification, to make the top 4 and the play-offs or to get into the top 2 and a home semi). It is the price we pay for a league such as the Aviva Premiership is now, with all teams with something to fight for right up until the end.

And as has been mentioned, the English clubs aren't good enough to regularly compete on these two fronts. They used to be, but we've been caught up and over-taken.

Brendan I'm not sure if the clubs would put all their eggs into the one basket of getting through to the HC quarter-finals at the expense of the league, so with your proposal I don't think we would see many (any) more English quarter-finalists. It could however take some of the pressure off teams who make it into the quarter-final and help them compete at the sharper end of the competition.

But I don't think we can force clubs to value the Heineken Cup any higher without devaluing our league, and whether that's the right thing to do would be a contentious point. The only option therefore remains to make the clubs stronger and better equipped to compete on two fronts. How to do that probably deserves a topic of its own.

Hammer, the point that is most relevant in your post is what is the priority for english clubs. They arent good enough to compete on both fronts, at the minute, on this we can agree, but the question I suppose I am trying to answer is how the clubs, the premiership and the RFU can change that situation.

As I answered above there is the possility that the sixth placed team could be competing in a relegation play off, but as I tried to state above, I don't think the pride of clubs or the players themselves would cause this to happen that often. There could also be some monetary advantage to incentivise the clubs to reach as high a league place as possible. They would also have to perform to qualify for Europe for the next season.

In response to the superleague idea, I think this is a poor, poor idea. Mark Evans, by the way, wasn't advocating either. He said this is they way he thought things would end up but that he was actually ambivalent to the idea. I agree that market forces will drive the game that way, if we allow it, but I believe that would be a huge detriment to the game itself and kill off the development of the game in tier 2 and 3 countries. I would post a link to the interview, but I'm not allowed to yet but there's a good report in the Telegraph by Paul Ackford.

Robbo, the reason I posted this is I agree that it is the format of the Premiership and the stresses it puts on clubs which means they can't compete on 2 fronts. By protecting the clubs who have qualified for Europe it removes one of those stresses from them. They still have to play well in the league to ensure qualification for the next season.

By protecting the value of the league, whilst enabling the clubs to compete in Europe.....surely that's a win win situation???

pharmachris - who was the last english team to fight relegation that was in the HC

I think people are saying the problem is getting back in. The system doesn't allow the teams like LI to focus on HC after to games because they had to fight so hard to get back into the HC and look like they won't make it.

Exeter did good this year but they may have to make a chice next year after 3 games in the HC do they go for bust or secure HC for the next year

Brendan wrote:pharmachris - who was the last english team to fight relegation that was in the HC

I think people are saying the problem is getting back in. The system doesn't allow the teams like LI to focus on HC after to games because they had to fight so hard to get back into the HC and look like they won't make it.

Exeter did good this year but they may have to make a chice next year after 3 games in the HC do they go for bust or secure HC for the next year

Brendan, they may well do, but the thing about Exeter is that the gap between strongest and weakest player in the squad is probably/possibly one of the narrowest in the AP, hence them being in the final of the 'A' league competition - the squad truly has 'depth' in terms of the playing staff all being of a relatively similar standard, so stepping in for injured players hasn't been a huge hurdle

That is good to hear, I would hate for them to struggle in either.

They had a hard Group in the Amlin how did the manage the four big games with thier squad and the prem games before and after the games

pharmachris wrote:Hammer, the point that is most relevant in your post is what is the priority for english clubs. They arent good enough to compete on both fronts, at the minute, on this we can agree, but the question I suppose I am trying to answer is how the clubs, the premiership and the RFU can change that situation.

As I answered above there is the possility that the sixth placed team could be competing in a relegation play off, but as I tried to state above, I don't think the pride of clubs or the players themselves would cause this to happen that often. There could also be some monetary advantage to incentivise the clubs to reach as high a league place as possible. They would also have to perform to qualify for Europe for the next season.

In response to the superleague idea, I think this is a poor, poor idea. Mark Evans, by the way, wasn't advocating either. He said this is they way he thought things would end up but that he was actually ambivalent to the idea. I agree that market forces will drive the game that way, if we allow it, but I believe that would be a huge detriment to the game itself and kill off the development of the game in tier 2 and 3 countries. I would post a link to the interview, but I'm not allowed to yet but there's a good report in the Telegraph by Paul Ackford.

Robbo, the reason I posted this is I agree that it is the format of the Premiership and the stresses it puts on clubs which means they can't compete on 2 fronts. By protecting the clubs who have qualified for Europe it removes one of those stresses from them. They still have to play well in the league to ensure qualification for the next season.

By protecting the value of the league, whilst enabling the clubs to compete in Europe.....surely that's a win win situation???

Mark Evans said that he wanted a ring fenced premiership while at Harlequins and he still does now he's left. He then went on to say that you need to have some system to allow for 'another Exeter'. When Austin asked if he meant something like Super league he said "Yes". He also said after the 3 years a team HAS to be relegated even if there are 'better' on points than the 'best' championship team.

Why is it a stupid idea? And what have tier 2/3 countries got to do with it?

Regarding 6th place being in the relegation playoff and "pride" stopping, well if there are 4 clubs in the playoff all it would need is for 2 teams in the HEC to be below 6th. If we looked at this year we'd have a relegation play-off of 12th, 11th, 10th and 6th (as things stand)

I'd don't really understand how stopping a HEC qualified team from being relegated (finishing 12th) and still requiring them to qualify for HEC (6th+) can add value. Either they're competing for Europe next season and relegation isn't a problem, or you're protecting them from relegation and the league is unimportant.

As a little factoid, Saints were in the semi-final of the HEC in 2007 and got relegated in the same year.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Mark Evans said that he wanted a ring fenced premiership while at Harlequins and he still does now he's left. He then went on to say that you need to have some system to allow for 'another Exeter'. When Austin asked if he meant something like Super league he said "Yes". He also said after the 3 years a team HAS to be relegated even if there are 'better' on points than the 'best' championship team.

Why is it a stupid idea? And what have tier 2/3 countries got to do with it?

Regarding 6th place being in the relegation playoff and "pride" stopping, well if there are 4 clubs in the playoff all it would need is for 2 teams in the HEC to be below 6th. If we looked at this year we'd have a relegation play-off of 12th, 11th, 10th and 6th (as things stand)

I'd don't really understand how stopping a HEC qualified team from being relegated (finishing 12th) and still requiring them to qualify for HEC (6th+) can add value. Either they're competing for Europe next season and relegation isn't a problem, or you're protecting them from relegation and the league is unimportant.

The interview in the Telegraph went further than that. Mark Evans said that eventually market forces would select about 4 or 5 english clubs, a couple of welsh regions, a couple of Irish regions and 4 or 5 french clubs in to a european superleague. This is what I was refering to. search the telegraph website or goodle it. Unfortunately I can't give a link as I'm less than a week old.....!

The superleague format you describe is even more preferable to my idea!
But for it to succeed I think you would have to have a viable, financially supported "2nd tier" competition. Some of the rugby in the Championship is of better standard than in the prem imo but the clubs aren't as well financed and we are left with the ridiculous situation where only one of the 4 teams left in the promotion play offs will be eligible for promotion.

In the example you give if my suggestion was implemented now, 3 of the 4 teams you list are bottom of the pile anyway. Taking away the fear of relegation for the teams currently placed 7 8 and 9th means they would have been able to focus their play in to the european cup, possibly have won it and gained more finance and an automatic place in next years HEC anyway.

As for qualifying for Europe, I was going to suggest having earlier cut offs for top 4 qualification and to win the premiership and then the middle 4 teams have another play off where 2 of them will win HEC qualification......but I thought that would *really* complicate things......

Surely scrapping for everything, whether it be a top 6 finish or to avoid relegation from the GP, would develop battle hardened teams ready for the rigours of Europe, while the dead rubber, no-one-cares-it's-just-a-training-match games in the Pro12 would lead to the opposite, I.e. soft, undercooked teams not used to scrapping?

The French teams seem to do well in the HC and I always read that it's because of the hard league they play in. Maybe it's just a few bad years for English teams rather than relegation being to blame? Look at the Welsh, we dont have relagation and we're still shoite in the HC, so the theory doesn't stack up!

pharmachris, the Super League I was talking about was the English Rugby League not the Southern Hemisphere Super 15 (although it was my fault for not making that clear).

They introduced 'licences' for the top league based on a points systems for things like: league performance (average position over the 3 years?), financial security, average attendance, distance from other licence applicants, etc.

There were a few annoyed clubs like Widnes who were denied promotion so that the Crusaders could be added. However that all depends on how you weight the points.

What it does give is three years the develop your club to a suitable level. But you also have to perform well each year. It also doesn't penalise too heavily a one off poor seasons that may be due to crazy injuries (Wasps).

The worst hit area may well be the West country due to the number of clubs in that area.

Sorry if you already knew all this.

Griff wrote:Surely scrapping for everything, whether it be a top 6 finish or to avoid relegation from the GP, would develop battle hardened teams ready for the rigours of Europe, while the dead rubber, no-one-cares-it's-just-a-training-match games in the Pro12 would lead to the opposite, I.e. soft, undercooked teams not used to scrapping?

The French teams seem to do well in the HC and I always read that it's because of the hard league they play in. Maybe it's just a few bad years for English teams rather than relaxation being to blame? Look at the Welsh, we dont have relagation and we're still shoite in the HC, so the theory doesn't stack up!

What about Edinburgh? I wonder how the sponsors view their team ethos in the Pro12?

We're not talking about sponsors though are we? I'm arguing that tough leagues should produce tough teams who are good in Europe beacause they'd had to scrap for everything, like in the case of the French. Therefore, blaming poor European performances on having a tough league is nonsense. The only thing that's happening in England, I'm arguing, is that they're having a tough few years. The threat of relegation didn't hold the likes of Leicester back when they were the kings of Europe. But suddenly it is now because resutls are not going your way. It's just a cycle. You'll be back and you'll still have relegation.

The lack of relegation has done nothing for welsh or Scottish teams, save the odd blip like Cardiff a few years back and Edinburgh this year, so I don't think it's a good theory.

I think one of the problems with relegation is as much a holding back for teams coming up as going down.

Newcastle has a 80% chance of not getting relegated wasps are about 95%.

If you brought in the three year league it would do two things.

Teams like Newcastle could hold onto players better as if they stay up would you sign a 3 year deal when you could go down next year.
The lower teams in the league would play more open and as a result so would the higher teams. The English will always be good at the scrum so that wont change but the game would be speeded up.

The the championship teams like pirates aren't going to spend millions on development and then spend one year there. Having 3 years if promoted would be the carrot some need to meet the standard.

Also the money deals would be fairer as could be done in the 3 year cycle

I think the Superleague system as described by Thunor is a good idea and it's certainly a damn sight easier to understand than mine above!!!

There is one proviso, though:

The current Championship would need to have proper investment from the RFU and access to TV rights and sponsorship. Without this investment, even a 3 year turnaround when they were promoted wouldnt be enough and they would then find themselves dumped back down.

So that's that sorted then!

What if there was relegation every second year instead? Who says it has to be an annual event? There could also be every second year what the op suggested and have 6 sides given h cup places based on the results every second year. That way the two stresses on the teams in the league could be gone every second year at least and there would still be the opportunity for the sacred relegation every second year.

Intotouch wrote:What if there was relegation every second year instead? Who says it has to be an annual event? There could also be every second year what the op suggested and have 6 sides given h cup places based on the results every second year. That way the two stresses on the teams in the league could be gone every second year at least and there would still be the opportunity for the sacred relegation every second year.

I think the 3 year franchise license would be better